[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANc+2y4BtQGqtC8RJL1Srrz_kWwhyveV3HBpfO1kikFj+0mHaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:21:16 +0530
From: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@...il.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.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
Hi Jarkko,
On 24 October 2017 at 23:52, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:05:20PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>> > 1. Every user in the kernel is using TPM_ANY_NUM, which means there are
>> > no other users.
>>
>> Completely agree that there is no in kernel users yet.
>
> And should never be. It's a bogus parameter that makes no sense.
I understood that after seeing latest patch that uses struct tpm_chip.
Sorry for the noise.
>> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally
>> > uacceptable.
>>
>> As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know whether
>> it is acceptable or not.
>
> I like the idea of removing the tpm rng driver as discussed in other
> emails in this thread.
Thank you.
>> > 3. Using zero deos not give you any better guarantees on anything than
>> > just using TPM_ANY_NUM.
>>
>> Chip id is used, not zero.
>
> Sorry I misread the patch first time. Anyway it's not any kind of ID to
> be trusted.
Okay.
>> > Why this patch is not CC'd to linux-integrity? It modifies the TPM
>> > driver. And in the worst way.
>>
>> TPM list is moderated and the moderator has not approved it yet.
>> get_maintainer script did not say about linux-integrity mailing list.
>>
>> It could be doing things in worst way but it is not known until some
>> one says. If no one tells it is the case I don't think it is possible
>> to fix. Which is what happened.
>
> Understood. We've moved to linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org. MAINTAINERS
> update is in the queue for the next kernel release.
Sorry I never knew this.
>> > Implementing the ideas that Jason explained is the senseful way to
>> > get stable access. modules.dep makes sure that the modules are loaded
>> > in the correct order.
>>
>> If that is sensible then it is the way to go.
>>
>> There must be a reason to believe what is sensible and what is not.
>> Looks like this RFC has helped in judging that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> PrasannaKumar
>
> Would you be interested to work on patch set that would remove the
> existing tpm rng driver and make the TPM driver the customer? It's not
> that far away from the work you've been doing already.
>
> /Jarkko
I am late to the party. Jason has sent a patch doing that by the time
I read this email.
Thanks and regards,
PrasannaKumar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists