On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:16:37PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 23:42 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:58:23PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 01:36:28PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2017-01-22 at 23:04 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:01:07PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually what you suggested is much better idea because it
> > > > > > will also
> > > > > > take care of validation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's why it's clever ... I'm just always wary of clever
> > > > > code
> > > > > because of the Kernighan principle.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm still going to keep tpm2_map_to_phandle because it makes
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > code flow a lot cleaner and probably sessions have to anyway
> > > > > > make it
> > > > > > even more complicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, there's one more thing that seems to be causing problems:
> > > > > when
> > > > > tpm2_save_context fails because the handle no longer exists
> > > > > (like it's
> > > > > been flushed) it returns TPM_RC_REFERENCE_H0 not TPM_RC_HANDLE
> > > > > (the
> > > > > session code does seem to return TPM_RC_HANDLE under some
> > > > > circumstances).
> > > > >
> > > > > James
> > > >
> > > > What is your way for reproducing this issue? Just want to add
> > > > a test case for my smoke test suite so that I can verify that
> > > > the issue is fixed once I've fixed it.
> > >
> > > Right. Too easy. Sorry about this. I'll push a fix for this to
> > > tabrm4 branch.
> >
> > 1. I pushed a fix to the repository.
>
> I don't think the fix is right; this is what you now have
>
> } else if ((rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
> {
>
> That should be
>
> } else if (rc == TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0)
>
> because the 0x9XX return codes don't have any parameter information
> that needs stripping and (rc & TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) ==
> TPM2_RC_REFERENCE_H0) will match any error code that has bits 11, 8
> and 5 set.
>
> I think the handle check was wrong too, it should have been
>
> if (rc & 0xff) == TPM2_RC_HANDLE)
>
> Because all you need to do is strip off the parameter information
>
> James
Can you check if it is now what you would expect? There's now
a helper called tpm2_rc_value(). I also created tabrm5 branch
where everything is nicely squashed together...
/Jarkko
