Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-73872-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:42:13 +0000
Message-Id: <CZAC8SNXYDU6.2GHMH4MJAOA9C@seitikki>
To: "Lino Sanfilippo" <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>, "Alexander Steffen"
 <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>, "Daniel P. Smith"
 <dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>, "Sasha
 Levin" <sashal@kernel.org>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "Ross Philipson" <ross.philipson@oracle.com>, "Kanth Ghatraju"
 <kanth.ghatraju@oracle.com>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
References: <20240131170824.6183-1-dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
 <20240131170824.6183-2-dpsmith@apertussolutions.com>
 <CYU3CFW08DAA.29DJY7SJYPJJZ@suppilovahvero>
 <2ba9a96e-f93b-48e2-9ca0-48318af7f9b1@kunbus.com>
 <ae3fecc4-7b76-4607-8749-045e17941923@infineon.com>
 <91f600ef-867b-4523-89be-1c0ba34f8a4c@kunbus.com>
 <CZA9CM3PDILC.82JMLUWMB6B7@seitikki> <CZA9GMC718HA.1JFHTTWV563IE@seitikki>
 <9da1855b-eca2-4c11-a69d-e01494c985d1@kunbus.com>
In-Reply-To: <9da1855b-eca2-4c11-a69d-e01494c985d1@kunbus.com>

On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 11:26 PM UTC, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>
>
> On 20.02.24 23:31, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > ATTENTION: This e-mail is from an external sender. Please check attachm=
ents and links before opening e.g. with mouseover.
> >=20
> >=20
> > On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 10:26 PM UTC, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 8:54 PM UTC, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> >>> for (i =3D 0; i <=3D MAX_LOCALITY; i++)
> >>>     __tpm_tis_relinquish_locality(priv, i);
> >>
> >> I'm pretty unfamiliar with Intel TXT so asking a dummy question:
> >> if Intel TXT uses locality 2 I suppose we should not try to
> >> relinquish it, or?
> >>
> >> AFAIK, we don't have a symbol called MAX_LOCALITY.
> >=20
> > OK it was called TPM_MAX_LOCALITY :-) I had the patch set applied
> > in one branch but looked up with wrong symbol name.
> >=20
>
> Sorry for the confusion. The code was just meant to sketch a solution, it=
 was=20
> written out of my head and I just remembered that Daniels patch set intro=
duced
> some define for the max number of the localities. I did not look up the c=
orrect
> name though.

NP

BR, Jarkko