On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 10:26 PM UTC, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 8:54 PM UTC, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > > for (i = 0; i <= MAX_LOCALITY; i++) > > __tpm_tis_relinquish_locality(priv, i); > > I'm pretty unfamiliar with Intel TXT so asking a dummy question: > if Intel TXT uses locality 2 I suppose we should not try to > relinquish it, or? > > AFAIK, we don't have a symbol called MAX_LOCALITY. OK it was called TPM_MAX_LOCALITY :-) I had the patch set applied in one branch but looked up with wrong symbol name. So I reformalize my question to two parts: 1. Why does TXT leave locality 2 open in the first place? I did not see explanation. Isn't this a bug in TXT? 2. Because localities are not too useful these days given TPM2's policy mechanism I cannot recall out of top of my head can you have two localities open at same time. So what kind of conflict happens when you try to open locality 0 and have locality 2 open? BR, Jarkko
