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]

Message-Id: <1223472803.5742.21.camel@blackbox>
Date:	Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:33:23 -0300
From:	Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface

On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 16:00 +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> 
> > Based on discussions on the lkml mailing list, the TPM should be
> > built in, but when it is not builtin, the internal TPM kernel
> > interface did not protect itself from the removal of the TPM
> > driver, while being used. 
> 
> If the TPM driver should be built in, why is there an option to make it 
> modular?
> 
> - James

Hi James,

It's recommended that the TPM driver should be built-in when using IMA to make sure 
it's measuring the system as closely as possible to the start of the boot process,
but it's not necessarily true when using it to store keys, for example.

Rajiv


--
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/