On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:30:55PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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.
It came out quite clean actually.
I just encapsulated handle mapping and have this in the beginning of
tpm2_map_command:
if (cc == TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT)
return tpm2_map_to_phandle(space, &cmd[TPM_HEADER_SIZE]);
I think this documents better what is actually going on than tinkering
cc_attr_tbl.
/Jarkko
