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: <20160903062221.GA2061@intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Sep 2016 09:22:22 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:     Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
        "moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" 
        <tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: move struct tpm_class_ops to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:45:31PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 01:35:22AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:11:22PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 12:48:03AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > The struct tpm_class_ops is not used outside the TPM driver. Thus,
> > > > it can be safely move to drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h.
> > > 
> > > No, this is the wrong direction.
> > > 
> > > The goal is to make things more like other subsystems, so we should be
> > > moving struct tpm_chip into the public header, and that requires ops
> > > to be in the public header.
> > > 
> > > This is why I put ops here in the first place.
> > 
> > I'm OK with it as long as you explain why this is necessary. I see no
> > use for them outside the TPM subsystem.
> 
> That is because the users out side the subsystem are Doing it Wrong.
> 
> eg this:
> 
>  extern int tpm_is_tpm2(u32 chip_num);
> 
> Should be:
> 
>  extern int tpm_is_tpm2(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> 
> And same for all other examples.
> 
> The 'chip_num' thing is bonkers.

OK, how would one get the chip instance?

/Jarkko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ