Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190826081752.57258-1-kkamagui@gmail.com> <CACdnJutomLNthYDzEc0wFBcBHK5iqnk0p-hkAkp57zQZ38oGPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHjaAcSFhQsDYL2iRwwhyvxh9mH4DhxZ__DNzhtk=iiZZ5JdbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACdnJutfR2X-5ksXw4PNUdyH2MJs_mExNCcYPp8NLcPW2EDrYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHjaAcSpU0eW5PLsEpxTkycwi+wNS67xeizb6_BMM_-qUZYAmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190827171106.owkvt6slwwg5ypyl@srcf.ucam.org> <CAHjaAcSu04J3WqT_vnSnaQuYpFQ+xiXXWxhcCeLQccEq6eQGcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190829153437.gjcqfolsc26vyt4x@linux.intel.com> <20190829153917.glq6eoka2eufy42w@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190829153917.glq6eoka2eufy42w@linux.intel.com>
From:   Seunghun Han <kkamagui@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 01:12:53 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHjaAcQ2OmrFO2wWCXocR9xO_aTRYU4vLf3aBr4v5Fn2A89wvg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: tpm: Remove a busy bit of the NVS area for
 supporting AMD's fTPM
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        "open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 06:34:37PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 06:36:04PM +0900, Seunghun Han wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 01:36:30AM +0900, Seunghun Han wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I got your point. Is there any problem if some regions which don't
> > > > > need to be handled in NVS area are saved and restored? If there is a
> > > > > problem, how about adding code for ignoring the regions in NVS area to
> > > > > the nvs.c file like Jarkko said? If we add the code, we can save and
> > > > > restore NVS area without driver's interaction.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing that knows which regions should be skipped by the NVS
> > > > driver is the hardware specific driver, so the TPM driver needs to ask
> > > > the NVS driver to ignore that region and grant control to the TPM
> > > > driver.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
> > >
> > > Thank you, Matthew and Jarkko.
> > > It seems that the TPM driver needs to handle the specific case that
> > > TPM regions are in the NVS. I would make a patch that removes TPM
> > > regions from the ACPI NVS by requesting to the NVS driver soon.
> > >
> > > Jarkko,
> > > I would like to get some advice on it. What do you think about
> > > removing TPM regions from the ACPI NVS in TPM CRB driver? If you don't
> > > mind, I would make the patch about it.
> >
> > I'm not sure if ignoring is right call. Then the hibernation behaviour
> > for TPM regions would break.
> >
> > Thus, should be "ask access" rather than "grant control".

I agree with your idea. It seems to make trouble. So, I would like to
do like your idea below.

> Or "reserve access" as NVS driver does not have intelligence to do any
> policy based decision here.
>
> A function that gets region and then checks if NVS driver has matching
> one and returns true/false based on that should be good enough. Then
> you raw ioremap() in the TPM driver.
>
> /Jarkko

This solution is great and clear to me. I will make a new patch on
your advice and test it in my machine. After that, I will send it
again soon.
I really appreciate it.

Seunghun