On Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 11:06 AM EET, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2024-02-21 at 19:43 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed Feb 21, 2024 at 12:37 PM UTC, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 22:31 +0000, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > [...] > > > > I cannot recall out of top of my head can > > > > you have two localities open at same time. > > > > > > I think there's a misunderstanding about what localities are: > > > they're effectively an additional platform supplied tag to a > > > command. Each command can therefore have one and only one > > > locality. The TPM doesn't > > > > Actually this was not unclear at all. I even read the chapters from > > Ariel Segall's yesterday as a refresher. > > > > I was merely asking that if TPM_ACCESS_X is not properly cleared and > > you se TPM_ACCESS_Y where Y < X how does the hardware react as the > > bug report is pretty open ended and not very clear of the steps > > leading to unwanted results. > > So TPM_ACCESS_X is *not* a generic TPM thing, it's a TIS interface > specific thing. Now the TIS interface seems to be dominating, so > perhaps it is the correct programming model for us to follow, but not > all current TPMs adhere to it. I know, I only have CRB based TPMs in my host machines but here the context is TIS interface so in this scope it's what we care about. We're trying to fix a bug here, not speculate what additional features could be done with localities. BR, Jarkko
