Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to security/next-general
jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com
Mon Feb 4 11:58:23 UTC 2019
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 10:04:35AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:45 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > I understand what you mean. Just surprised that this hasn't failed
> > before to anyone (the same driver has been even successfully used
> > on ARM64 with TrustZone based fTPM implementation). It has been in
> > for three years now.
> Just to finish this thread off: it turns out that both ARM and ARM64
> worked fine, because neither did a memcpy(), but had explicit IO copy
> And in those explicit routines, 32-bit ARM did only byte accesses, and
> 64-bit ARM did 8-byte accesses for the bulk transfer part, but byte
> accesses for the unaligned head and tail of the IO area.
> So I think it's all good. x86 used to work by luck (either because all
> machines that used that TPM chip always had ERMS, or because the
> people who didn't have it never cared), and ARM just worked because it
> would never do unaligned IO accesses anyway (well, I guess you can
> force them with "readl()" on an unaligned address, but then you just
> have yourself to blame).
OK, thanks for the summary. This kind of answered to my question. Should
be sufficient to include the tpm_crb fix to the 5.1 PR.
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive