On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:16:32AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 02/09/2015 03:39 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:08:46AM +0100, Peter Hüwe wrote:
> >>Am Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2015, 15:21:09 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen:
> >>>If during transmission system error was returned, the logic was to
> >>>incorrectly deduce that chip is a TPM 1.x chip. This patch fixes this
> >>>issue. Also, this patch changes probing so that message tag is used as the
> >>>measure for TPM 2.x, which should be much more stable.
> >>Is it aware that some TPMs may respond with 0x00C1 as TAG for TPM1.2 
> >>commands?
> >I guess none of the TPM 1.2 command answer with the tag 0x8002?
> 
> 
> FYI: pdf page 26 , section 6.1 explains the predictable return value for a
> TPM1.2 command seen by a TPM2
> 
> http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/static_page_files/8C68ADA8-1A4B-B294-D0FC06D3773F7DAA/TPM%20Rev%202.0%20Part%203%20-%20Commands%2001.16-code.pdf
> 
> Following this:
> 
> Sending a TPM1.2 command to a TPM2 should return a TPM1.2 header (tag =
> 0xc4) and error code (TPM_BADTAG = 0x1e)
> 
> Sending a TPM 2 command to a TPM 2 will give a TPM 2 tag in the header.
> Sending a TPM 2 command to a TPM 1.2 will give a TPM 1.2 tag in the header
> and an error code.

Thank you for the information. Do you think that for some reason
tpm2_probe() shoould instead check that value is not this error
instead of checking that tag is 0x80002?

>    Stefan

/Jarkko

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the 
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
TrouSerS-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/trousers-tech

Reply via email to