[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170116094559.jsw7ffrozs42ubue@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:45:59 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v2 5/5] tpm2: expose resource manager
via a device link /dev/tpms<n>
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 09:40:08AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 10:25 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:56:28PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > > > dev_t tpm_devt;
> > >
> > > But they should have different major device numbers.
> >
> > major/minors don't really matter these days since they are dynamic
>
> Right, although we have this weird piece of code:
>
>
> if (chip->dev_num == 0)
> chip->dev.devt = MKDEV(MISC_MAJOR, TPM_MINOR);
> else
> chip->dev.devt = MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num);
>
> So the first TPM device gets the MISC_MAJOR with TPM_MINOR and the rest
> get the dynamic major/minor. It means when you do an ls on a complex
> system you get something like:
>
> crw------- 1 root root 10, 224 Jan 13 06:21 /dev/tpm0
> crw------- 1 root root 246, 1 Jan 13 09:38 /dev/tpm1
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 246, 65536 Jan 13 06:21 /dev/tpms0
> crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 246, 65537 Jan 13 09:38 /dev/tpms1
>
> Perhaps it's time just to junk the reserved misc minor?
+1
And Jason is correct about major numbers. I still am puzzled whether
these should share the device class and devt with raw /dev/tpm0.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists