> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 10:52:46PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > This is still NACK from my side > > Last time you spoke about tboot intervention but I don't see why as even > sending a single command is not atomic in the true sense of the word i.e. if > there was a problem that would already affect the existing code and would > essentially mean that tboot itself is broken. So I've consulted the issue, I wasn't not correct in the description. Tboot cannot acquire the locality, unless the host driver relinquish it, so the issue is opposite, driver is expected to relinquish the locality for tboot to work correctly. This is current status, other behavior will need a different implementation on both sides. Hopes that clears the question. Thanks
