linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v4 4/5] tpm: split out tpm-dev.c into tpm-dev.c and tpm-common-dev.c

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: <1485210503.2534.32.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:28:23 -0800
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v4 4/5] tpm: split out tpm-dev.c into
 tpm-dev.c and tpm-common-dev.c

On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 09:47 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:44:32AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley
> > <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> 
> I really think we should not use the ugly read/write interface for 
> any new things.

The R/W interface is needed for backward compat, so we don't really
have a choice (well, it could go in for long term deprecation, but I
found in SCSI that "long term" == "never").  I think no-one objects to
the ioctl interface ... it's just no-one feels strongly enough to build
and test it.  I'm sure if you send patches, Jarkko will include them.

James

> Still unconvinced we should add a new cdev at this point.. But seeing
> seesion support certainl is encouraging..