On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 02:00:37PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
From: Stefan Berger stefann@linux.vnet.ibm.com
This patch implements the main part of the TCG BIOS extensions. It provides the following functionality:
- initialization of the TCPA ACPI table used for logging of measurements
- initialization of the TPM by sending a sequence of commands to it
- proper setup of the TPM before the BIOS hands over control to the bootloader
- support for S3 resume; BIOS sends TPM_Startup(ST_STATE) to TPM
- enable configuration of SeaBIOS to be built with TCGBIOS extensions All TCG BIOS extensions are activated with CONFIG_TCGBIOS.
[...]
--- a/src/Kconfig +++ b/src/Kconfig @@ -421,6 +421,13 @@ menu "BIOS interfaces" modified by programs. However, some old DOS high memory managers may require the UMB region to be read-only.
- config TCGBIOS
select S3_RESUME
bool "TPM support and TCG BIOS extensions"
default y
help
Provide TPM support along with TCG BIOS extensions
I don't think TCGBIOS should select S3_RESUME. If resume processing is an absolute requirement then I think it should use "depends on".
[...]
--- a/src/boot.c +++ b/src/boot.c @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include "std/disk.h" // struct mbr_s #include "string.h" // memset #include "util.h" // irqtimer_calc +#include "tcgbios.h" // tpm_*
/**************************************************************** @@ -475,6 +476,7 @@ interactive_bootmenu(void)
printf("Select boot device:\n\n"); wait_threads();
- tpm_leave_bios();
Is this call really supposed to be in the boot menu? The call wont get invoked if the boot menu isn't selected.
--- a/src/post.c +++ b/src/post.c @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ #include "output.h" // dprintf #include "string.h" // memset #include "util.h" // kbd_init +#include "tcgbios.h" // tpm_*
/**************************************************************** @@ -220,6 +221,10 @@ maininit(void) if (threads_during_optionroms()) device_hardware_setup();
- // Initialize tpm (after acpi tables were written)
- tpm_acpi_init();
- tpm_startup();
I think this should be just one call - such as "tpm_setup()", which in turn calls tpm_xyz().
Also, functions with "_init" and "_setup" suffixes have specific meaning in the bootstrap ordering sequence. So tpm shouldn't export functions with these suffixes unless they are invoked during the given sequence.
[...]
+u32 +tpm_startup(void) +{
- u32 rc;
- u32 returnCode;
- if (!CONFIG_TCGBIOS)
return 0;
- if (!has_working_tpm())
return TCG_GENERAL_ERROR;
- dprintf(DEBUG_tcg, "TCGBIOS: Starting with TPM_Startup(ST_CLEAR)\n");
- rc = build_and_send_cmd(TPM_ORD_Startup,
Startup_ST_CLEAR, sizeof(Startup_ST_CLEAR),
NULL, 10, &returnCode, TPM_DURATION_TYPE_SHORT);
- dprintf(DEBUG_tcg, "Return code from TPM_Startup = 0x%08x\n",
returnCode);
+#if CONFIG_COREBOOT
- /* with other firmware on the system the TPM may already have been
* initialized
*/
- if (returnCode == TPM_INVALID_POSTINIT)
returnCode = 0;
+#endif
That '#if' should be turned into an 'if (...)'.
[...]
+u32 +tpm_s3_resume(void) +{
- u32 rc;
- u32 returnCode;
- if (!CONFIG_TCGBIOS)
return 0;
- if (!has_working_tpm())
return TCG_GENERAL_ERROR;
- timer_setup();
Why is the timer reinitialized here? There may be implications in touching that hardware during an S3 resume.
- dprintf(DEBUG_tcg, "TCGBIOS: Resuming with TPM_Startup(ST_STATE)\n");
- rc = build_and_send_cmd(TPM_ORD_Startup,
Startup_ST_STATE, sizeof(Startup_ST_STATE),
NULL, 10, &returnCode, TPM_DURATION_TYPE_SHORT);
- dprintf(DEBUG_tcg, "TCGBIOS: ReturnCode from TPM_Startup = 0x%08x\n",
returnCode);
- if (rc || returnCode)
goto err_exit;
- return 0;
+err_exit:
- dprintf(DEBUG_tcg, "TCGBIOS: TPM malfunctioning (line %d).\n", __LINE__);
- tpm_state.tpm_working = 0;
- if (rc)
return rc;
- return TCG_TCG_COMMAND_ERROR;
+} diff --git a/src/tcgbios.h b/src/tcgbios.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7be89f8 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/tcgbios.h @@ -0,0 +1,388 @@ +#ifndef TCGBIOS_H +#define TCGBIOS_H
+#include "types.h" +#include "bregs.h" /* struct bregs */
Why is "bregs.h" needed in the header - can it be included in the individual C files that need it?
As before, the above look minor to me and I think they could be addressed after merging. Based on your previous mail, I'm focusing review comments on patches 1 and 2 right now.
-Kevin