Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755633AbbBJMut (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:50:49 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:45183 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754543AbbBJMus (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:50:48 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,550,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="452561103" Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 14:50:37 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Stefan Berger Cc: Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=FCwe?= , Ashley Lai , Marcel Selhorst , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, josh@joshtriplett.org, christophe.ricard@gmail.com, jason.gunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, trousers-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm, tpm_tis: fix TPM 2.0 probing Message-ID: <20150210125037.GB4313@intel.com> References: <1423059669-31734-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <201502090008.47986.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <20150209083947.GC29987@intel.com> <54D9F6A0.9010905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <54D9F6A0.9010905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1710 Lines: 38 On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:16:32AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 02/09/2015 03:39 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:08:46AM +0100, Peter H?we wrote: > >>Am Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2015, 15:21:09 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen: > >>>If during transmission system error was returned, the logic was to > >>>incorrectly deduce that chip is a TPM 1.x chip. This patch fixes this > >>>issue. Also, this patch changes probing so that message tag is used as the > >>>measure for TPM 2.x, which should be much more stable. > >>Is it aware that some TPMs may respond with 0x00C1 as TAG for TPM1.2 commands? > >I guess none of the TPM 1.2 command answer with the tag 0x8002? > > > FYI: pdf page 26 , section 6.1 explains the predictable return value for a > TPM1.2 command seen by a TPM2 > > http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/static_page_files/8C68ADA8-1A4B-B294-D0FC06D3773F7DAA/TPM%20Rev%202.0%20Part%203%20-%20Commands%2001.16-code.pdf > > Following this: > > Sending a TPM1.2 command to a TPM2 should return a TPM1.2 header (tag = > 0xc4) and error code (TPM_BADTAG = 0x1e) > > Sending a TPM 2 command to a TPM 2 will give a TPM 2 tag in the header. > Sending a TPM 2 command to a TPM 1.2 will give a TPM 1.2 tag in the header > and an error code. Thank you for the information. Do you think that for some reason tpm2_probe() shoould instead check that value is not this error instead of checking that tag is 0x80002? > Stefan /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/