linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip

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: <20171024174637.GB1806@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:46:37 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@...il.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE IMA" 
        <linux-ima-user@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        "moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" 
        <tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        "open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" 
        <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
        "open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE IMA" 
        <linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        David Safford <safford@...ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from
 in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:44:30PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:

> I am wondering why it is wrong. Isn't the chip id valid till it is
> unregistered? If so the rfc is correct. Please explain, may be I am
> missing something.

The lifetime is a bit complicated, but the general rule in the kernel
for things like this it to use pointers, not ids, and certainly not
string ids.

For that patch it could just use container_of to get the chip..

Jason