On Wed, 2015-10-07 at 10:32 +0000, Fuchs, Andreas wrote: > > > > > > > I looked at Patch 3/4 and it seems you default to -EPERM > > > > > > > on TPM2_Create()- > > > > > > > and TPM2_Load()-failures ? > > > > > > > You might want to test against rc == TPM_RC_OBJECT_MEMORY > > > > > > > and return -EBUSY > > > > > > > in those cases. Would you agree ? > > > > > > > (P.S. I can cross-post there if that's prefered ?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Have to check the return values. I posted this patch set > > > > > > already in > > > > > > early July. You are the first reviewer in three months for > > > > > > this patch > > > > > > set. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the reason was that for TPM 1.x returned -EPERM in > > > > > > all error > > > > > > scenarios and I didn't want to endanger behaviour of > > > > > > command-line tools > > > > > > such as 'keyctl'. I would keep it that way unless you can > > > > > > guarantee that > > > > > > command-line tools will continue work correctly if I change > > > > > > it to > > > > > > -EBUSY. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, I will recheck this part of the patch set but > > > > > > likely are not > > > > > > going to do any changes because I don't want to break the > > > > > > user space. > > > > > > > > > > > > I will consider revising the patch set with keyhandle > > > > > > required as an > > > > > > explicit option. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm... Will the old keyctl work without modification with the > > > > > 2.0 patches > > > > > anyways ? > > > > > > > > Yes it does and it should. I've been using keyctl utility to > > > > test my > > > > patch set. > > > > > > > > > The different keyHandle values and missing default keyHandle > > > > > will yield > > > > > "differences" anyways, I'd say. > > > > > IMHO, we should get it as correct as possible given that TPM > > > > > 2.0 is still > > > > > very young. > > > > > > > > > > Is adding "additional" ReturnCodes considered ABI > > > > > -incompatible breaking > > > > > anyways ? > > > > > > > > Yes they are if they make the user space utiltiy malfunction. > > > > > > AFAICT, keyctl just perror()s. Which is what I would have hoped. > > > So it guess it should work with -EBUSY. > > > Example-Trace of calls for key_adding: > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/keyutils.git/tree/key > > > utils.c#n43 > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/keyutils.git/tree/key > > > ctl.c#n379 > > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/keyutils.git/tree/key > > > ctl.c#n131 > > > > > > Wish I could test it myself. > > > I understand, if you don't want to test my thoughts on this. > > > I just cannot perform the tests myself right now... :-( > > > > I would submit this change as a separate patch later anyway and not > > include it into this patch set. If it doesn't do harm it can be > > added > > later on. This patch set has been now in queue for three months so > > I > > only make modifications that are absolutely necessary. > > > > Changing keyhandle as mandatory option seems like such changes. > > This > > doesn't. > > Fine with me. > > P.S. do you have a git repo with all your queued and future patches > at HEAD ?
In separate branches: https://github.com/jsakkine/linux-tpm2/branches > Cheers, > Andreas /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
