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: <alpine.LRH.1.10.0810081556390.13169@tundra.namei.org>
Date:	Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:00:02 +1100 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:	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>,
	Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface

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
-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
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/