On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 12:39:29PM -0400, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> > > To: "Jerry Snitselaar" <jsnit...@redhat.com>, "gang wei" > > <gang....@intel.com> > > Cc: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko.sakki...@iki.fi>, > > tpmdd-de...@lists.sourceforge.net, > > linux-security-mod...@vger.kernel.org, "Peter Huewe" <peterhu...@gmx.de>, > > "Marcel Selhorst" <tp...@selhorst.net>, > > "Jason Gunthorpe" <jguntho...@obsidianresearch.com>, "open list" > > <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> > > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2017 3:52:39 AM > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 > > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 09:52:11PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:25:57AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > > Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2017-03-24 10:10 GMT: > > > > > > > > > This commit adds support for requesting and relinquishing locality 0 > > > > > in > > > > > tpm_crb for the course of command transmission. > > > > > > > > > > In order to achieve this, two new callbacks are added to struct > > > > > tpm_class_ops: > > > > > > > > > > - request_locality > > > > > - relinquish_locality > > > > > > > > > > With CRB interface you first set either requestAccess or relinquish > > > > > bit > > > > > from TPM_LOC_CTRL_x register and then wait for locAssigned and > > > > > tpmRegValidSts bits to be set in the TPM_LOC_STATE_x register. > > > > > > > > > > The reason why were are doing this is to make sure that the driver > > > > > will work properly with Intel TXT that uses locality 2. There's no > > > > > explicit guarantee that it would relinquish this locality. In more > > > > > general sense this commit enables tpm_crb to be a well behaving > > > > > citizen in a multi locality environment. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnit...@redhat.com> > > > > Tested-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnit...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > Tested on kabylake system that was hitting issues with earlier > > > > iteration. Still don't have platform to test it dealing with > > > > multi-locality enviroment. > > > > > > I believe Jimmy (Gang Wei) has done such testing. Jimmy can you confirm > > > and possibly do re-test (there's a locality branch in my tree to ease > > > the testing) so that we could land this one? > > > > > > /Jarkko > > > > I applied this to my master and next branches. > > > > /Jarkko > > > > Hi Jarkko, > > The patch applied to next and master doesn't have the assignment moved > inside the mutex.
WTF, I applied old patch version by mistake. Sorry about that and thanks for spotting that out. Better? /Jarkko
