[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170226114440.5ksg3lx27ylekvbx@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:44:40 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] tpm: expose spaces via a device link /dev/tpms<n>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 08:02:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-23 at 11:09 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:25:19PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
> > >
> > > Currently the tpm spaces are not exposed to userspace. Make this
> > > exposure via a separate device, which can now be opened multiple
> > > times because each read/write transaction goes separately via the
> > > space.
> > >
> > > Concurrency is protected by the chip->tpm_mutex for each read/write
> > > transaction separately. The TPM is cleared of all transient
> > > objects by the time the mutex is dropped, so there should be no
> > > interference between the kernel and userspace.
> > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <
> > >
> > > James.Bottomley@...senPartnershp.com>
>
> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkine@...ux.intel.com>
> > Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkine@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Thanks!
>
> > Nitpicking but I've been thinking about naming. What about calling
> > the device as tpmrc0 as in resource context. I think that would be a
> > better name than TPM space.
>
> Well the original name was tpmrm<n> for TPM with Resource Manager. You
> wanted it to be tpms<n> for TPM with Spaces.
>
> I'm not entirely sold on the Resource Context name ... I think
> Resource Manager (because it's what the TCG calls it) or Spaces
> (because it's what all the code comments call it) are better.
> Resource Context sounds like what TPM2_SaveContext() creates for you
> rather than the interface.
>
> > You do not mix it up with namespaces and/or virtualization. With
> > resource in front it cannot be easily mixed up with TPM contexts
> > either.
>
> I'm a containers person. What this set of patches does is precisely OS
> level virtualization in my book, so I don't think you need to pretend
> it is't; and OS level virtualization is what a namespace does. The
> only difference between this and the other kernel namespaces is that
> you get a new namespace automatically when you open the device and you
> can't enter an existing namespace.
>
> I think therefore that tpmns<n> for TPM Namespace would be very
> appropriate.
Sorry for going back and forth with this but I turn it back to your
original tpmrm. It's in the end of the day the least confusing option. I
think this has been anyway useful to trip a bit around the options
because it is hard to rollback API...
> > This does not equire any effort from your side. I could do the
> > renaming.
> >
> > PS. Could you go through my commits and test and review them at some
> > point so we would have the whole patch set peer tested?
>
> Already reviewed, just doing a test build (I'm travelling, so it
> actually has to be on my physical laptop).
>
> James
There's now tabrm-v3 branch. I had to tweak error handling in your
device adding patch because of b4e9d7561a70. I hope I didn't break
anything.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists