Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751210AbdCQQf7 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:35:59 -0400 Received: from smtp2.infineon.com ([217.10.52.18]:43574 "EHLO smtp2.infineon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751065AbdCQQfx (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:35:53 -0400 X-SBRS: None From: To: , CC: , , , , Subject: RE: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 2/7] tpm: validate TPM 2.0 commands Thread-Topic: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 2/7] tpm: validate TPM 2.0 commands Thread-Index: AQHSnzntZx93Bws+CEmQhe2aV8sHKaGZOkpQ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:35:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20170303151912.14752-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20170303151912.14752-3-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <22e8fa0caf8b4386a12cd93ee7170ed5@MUCSE603.infineon.com> <20170317161614.GA28082@obsidianresearch.com> In-Reply-To: <20170317161614.GA28082@obsidianresearch.com> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [172.23.8.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 686 Lines: 16 > 1. I've got a TPM that implements vendor-specific command codes. Those > cannot be send to the TPM anymore, but are rejected with EINVAL. > >> 2. When upgrading the firmware on my TPM, it switches to a >> non-standard communication mode for the upgrade process and does not >> communicate using TPM2.0 commands during this time. Rejecting >> non-TPM2.0 commands means upgrading won't be possible anymore. >How non standard? Is the basic header even there? Are the lengths and status code right? >This might be an argument to add a 'raw' ioctl or something specifically for this special case. It follows the regular TPM command syntax and looks something like 1.2 commands. Peter