From: Frédéric G. <sy...@ca...> - 2012-05-25 14:10:36
|
Hi, Indeed, I have the same problem : TBOOT: TXT.ERRORCODE: 0xc0041d01 TBOOT: AC module error : acm_type=0x1, progress=0x10, error=0x7 TBOOT: LCP2 error: minor error = 0x3f, index = 399 The related structure is in ./tboot/include/txt/errorcode.h : 80 union { 81 uint32_t tpm_err : 9; /* progress=0x0d, error=1010 */ 82 struct { /* progress=0x10 */ 83 uint32_t lcp_minor : 6; 84 uint32_t lcp_index : 9; 85 }; 86 }; /* sub-error */ 87 uint32_t reserved : 5; 88 }; 89 } acmod_error_t; According to sinit_errors.txt, I think the lcp_index variable should be 3 bits instead of 9 : Bit Description ----- ----------- 24:16 LCP v2 minor error code, valid only for progress code 10h 24:22 Index (in LCP_POLICY_DATA::PolicyLists) of item responsible for error 21:16 Minor error code (see progress code 10h below) But with this correction I still have interpretation error : TBOOT: TXT.ERRORCODE: 0xc0041d01 TBOOT: AC module error : acm_type=0x1, progress=0x10, error=0x7 TBOOT: LCP2 error: minor error = 0x30, index = 0 Yours, Fred Le 23.05.2012 12:51, Andrew Goodbody a écrit : > The use of bit fields in parse_err is not working correctly. > > ./parse_err 0xc01128d1 > ERRORCODE: 0xc01128d1 > AC module error : acm_type=0x1, progress=0x0d, error=0xa > TPM error code = 0x0 > > Whereas the correct response should be 0x11. > > Bit fields are a minefield, they should not be used. > > Andrew > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. > Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in > malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > tboot-devel mailing list > tbo...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tboot-devel |