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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:20:12 -0800 From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> 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 16:04 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:57:11PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 15:49 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:28:23PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > 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, > > > > > > With what? This is a new cdev with different semantics. > > > > If you set TPM_DEVICE=/dev/tpms0 the old software just works. If > > we remove the R/W interface, nothing will work. The point being > > the new cdev has the same interface semantics, it just has > > different global behavour. > > So you are saying there is so much already deployed TPM2 software > that has this TPM_DEVICE env var convention that we need to support > it with compat? > > I'm really surprised by that.. But OK. > > Can you at least remove the 'user_read_timer' junk from the new cdev? What's the problem with it? Can we not just fix whatever the issue is? I'd rather reuse all the R/W machinery as is. If I start trying to special case it so that we only use some parts on some control flows, the chances are I'll introduce additional bugs as well. James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists