On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:48:12AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 09:49 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-01-20 at 23:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > 'tabrm4' branch has been now rebased. It's now on top of master > > > branch that contains Stefan's latest patch (min body length check) > > > that I've reviewed and tested. It also contains your updated > > > /dev/tpms patch. > > > > > > I guess the 5 commits that are there now are such that we have > > > fairly good consensus, don't we? If so, can I add your reviewed-by > > > and tested-by to my commits and vice versa? > > > > We're still failing my test_transients. This is the full python of > > the test case: > > > > > > def test_transients(self): > > k = self.open_transients() > > self.c.flush_context(k[0]) > > self.c.change_auth(self.c.SRK, k[1], None, pwd1) > > ... > > > > It's failing at self.c.flush_context(k[0]) with TPM_RC_VALUE. It's > > the same problem Ken complained about: TPM2_FlushContext doesn't have > > a declared handle area so we don't translate the handle being sent > > down. We have to fix this either by intercepting the flush and > > manually translating the context, or by being dangerously clever and > > marking flush as a command which takes one handle. > > This is what the dangerously clever fix looks like. With this and a > few other changes, my smoke tests now pass. > > James
I don't want to be clever here. I will rather intercept the body and try to keep the core code simple and easy to understand. /Jarkko
