| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <361d23520608251411g256804d8t678a98e0ff552454@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:11:34 -0400 From: "David Kyle" <david.kyle@...il.com> To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: TPM module: lack of internal kernel interface I'm currently working on implementing a trusted computing system using the linux TPM driver, similar to enforcer (http://enforcer.sourceforge.net). As my project involves kernel modifications that are highly unlikely to be of use within the mainstream kernel, I am attempting to confine my kernel-level work to a linux security module, so that my system will hopefully not be affected too heavily by newer kernel versions. Hovever, I have run into difficulty since the TPM driver included in the kernel doesn't include a internal interface for TPM access from within the kernel itself. There is only a userspace character device interface. Is there in fact an internal TPM interface I'm not seeing? If not, is there a particular reason why there isn't (and shouldn't be) one? It seems to me that it would be important to have such an interface for any trusted computing system. Enforcer uses it's own tpm kernel driver, which I'd definately like to avoid doing with my project. If I were to extend the existing TPM driver with an internal kernel interface, would it likely be included in the mainstream kernel? Thanks, David Kyle - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists