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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:24:23 +0200 From: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de> To: Ken Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: improve tpm_tis send() performance by ignoring burstcount On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:02:57 -0400 Ken Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On 8/13/2017 7:53 PM, msuchanek wrote: > > About 500 out of 700 mainboards sold today has a PS/2 port which is > > probably due to prevalence of legacy devices and usbhid limitations. > > > > Similarily many boards have serial and parallel hardware ports. > > > > In all diagrams detailed enough to show these ports I have seen them > > attached to the LPC bus. > > Do these boards have a TPM? Remember that the TPM requires special > LPC bus cycles. Out of nearly 700 boards over 500 have PS/2 connector and over 400 have TPM slot (which is subset of the PS/2 enabled boards). Some more possibly have on-board TPM chip. > > Even if so, the TPM LPC bus wait states are less than a usec. My > thought is that it's unlikely that any device (serial port, mouse, > keyboard, printer) will be adversely affected. Yes, in theory this is negligible. So unless there is a possibility these wait states chain or the device otherwise takes over the bus for extended period of time this should be fine. Thanks Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists