[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fff9a2ae-6f18-2401-f65b-d53f1506bbdf@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:36:20 -0700
From: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: jgg@...pe.ca, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, philip.b.tricca@...el.com,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
"Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation
On 06/21/2018 10:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:45:35PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
>> Hi Jarkko,
>> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
>> There are applications/frameworks where a worker thread is not an option.
>> Take for example the IoT use-cases and frameworks like IoT.js, or "Node.js for IoT".
>> They are all single threaded, event-driven frameworks, using non-blocking I/O as the base of their processing model.
>> Similarly embedded applications, which are basically just a single threaded event loop, quite often don't use threads because of resources constrains.
>>
>> If your concern is that user space will not adopt to this, I can say that TSS library [1] is currently blocked on this feature, and we can not enable some of the use-cases mentioned above because of this.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tadeusz
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-tss
>
> I put this into "mathematical" terms. TPM is by nature is blocking. It
> does not scale this way so you are essentially just simulating
> non-blocking behaviour.
>
That is correct, and this is exactly why we need this.
Thanks,
--
Tadeusz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists