Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: protect against locality counter underflow

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 11:26 PM UTC, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>
>
> On 20.02.24 23:31, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > ATTENTION: This e-mail is from an external sender. Please check attachments and links before opening e.g. with mouseover.
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
>
> Sorry for the confusion. The code was just meant to sketch a solution, it was 
> written out of my head and I just remembered that Daniels patch set introduced
> some define for the max number of the localities. I did not look up the correct
> name though.

NP

BR, Jarkko