On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:29:07PM +0000, Roberts, William C wrote: > > TPM specification is not a formal specification AFAIK. > > The published parts are, granted many things are changing. Yes, how it defines the protocol, you are correct. It does not have a formal definition of RM behavior or at least I haven't found it. > > > 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. > > We should update the elf loader to make sure that ELF files don't contain > Incorrect instructions. We shouldn't have this type of policy in the driver > considering that the tpm is designed to handle it. Obviously you disagree, > just understand you're wrong :-P I think -EINVAL is better than synthetizing commands that are not really from the TPM. And we would break backwards compatability by doing this. As I said in an earlier response I would rather compare resource manager to virtual memory than virtual machine. /Jarkko
