[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170102210953.GB5544@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 14:09:53 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/4] tpm: add the infrastructure for TPM space for
TPM 2.0
On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:22:10PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Added a ioctl for creating a TPM space. The space is isolated from the
> other users of the TPM. Only a process holding the file with the handle
> can access the objects and only objects that are created through that
> file handle can be accessed.
I don't understand this comment. /dev/tpmX is forced to be
single-process-open, so how can there ever be more than 1 FD for it?
Since the space is tied to that single fd these patches just create a
way for the single user-space process to auto-cleanup if it crashes?
Is that the entire intent of this design? I guess it is OK as a
stepping point..
> -ssize_t tpm_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t bufsiz,
> - unsigned int flags)
> +ssize_t tpm_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct tpm_space *space,
> + u8 *buf, size_t bufsiz, unsigned int flags)
Please split this patch so that 'struct tpm_space' introduction is in
its own patch and the actual UAPI change is in a much smaller
patch. It is very hard to see the uapi stuff in all of this churn.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists