On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:07:34AM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > As mentioned, I think this should be documented. I guess most people > would see the in-kernel resource manager as a virtualized TPM, since > the "TSS TAB and Resource Manager Specification" [0] explains the RM > making an analogy with a virtual memory manager: > > "The Resource Manager (RM) manages the TPM context in a manner similar > to a virtual memory manager. It swaps objects, sessions, and sequences > in and out of the limited TPM memory as needed."
A process in virtual memory has a different environment than code running on bare metal without page table, doesn't it? > And even your latest LPC presentation mention that the handles in the > in-kernel resource manager are virtualized [1]. > > And I disagree that it does not matter, since the same spec says: > > "This layer is mostly transparent to the upper layers of the TSS and is > not required." > > But returning -EINVAL instead of a proper TPM command response with a > TPM_RC_COMMAND_CODE code makes it not transparent to the upper layer. *mostly* > If the TPM spaces infrastructure is not compliant with the spec, then I > think that should also be documented. TPM specification is not a formal specification AFAIK. > > matters less than breaking the sandbox. > > > > Yes, sorry for that. It wasn't clear to me that there was a sandbox and my > lack of familiarity with the code was the reason why I posted as a RFC in > the first place. > > Do you agree with Jason's suggestion to send a synthesized TPM command in > the that the command isn't supported? Nope. /Jarkko
