[tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 2/7] tpm: validate TPM 2.0 commands
Jason Gunthorpe
jgunthorpe at obsidianresearch.com
Fri Mar 17 16:16:14 UTC 2017
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 03:40:15PM +0000, Alexander.Steffen at infineon.com wrote:
> 1. I've got a TPM that implements vendor-specific command
> codes. Those cannot be send to the TPM anymore, but are rejected
> with EINVAL.
>
> 2. When upgrading the firmware on my TPM, it switches to a
> non-standard communication mode for the upgrade process and does not
> communicate using TPM2.0 commands during this time. Rejecting
> non-TPM2.0 commands means upgrading won't be possible anymore.
How non standard? Is the basic header even there? Are the lengths
and status code right?
This might be an argument to add a 'raw' ioctl or something
specifically for this special case.
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list