linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:50:01 -0400
From:	Kenneth Goldman <kgoldman@...ibm.com>
To:	"Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface

"Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@...il.com> wrote on 08/15/2008 06:37:27 AM:

> Remember even soldered on stuff can fail.   How linux handles the
> death of the TPM module needs to be covered.

Is fault tolerance a requirement just for the TPM, or is it a general>
Linux requirement?  Has it always been there, or is it new?

For example, does kernel software have to gracefully handle
failures in the disk controller, processor, memory controller, BIOS
flash memory, etc?

I'd think it would be quite hard to code around motherboard
failures in a commodity platform not designed for fault tolerance.

--
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/