[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180629174328.GA4060@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:43:28 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
Azhar Shaikh <azhar.shaikh@...el.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: require to compile as part of the kernel
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:10:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Do not allow to compile TPM core as a module. TPM defines a root of
> > trust for integrity and keyring subsystems and should be always
> > available and not be loaded from the user space. There is no a
> > reasonable use case for a loadable module existing.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig | 2 +-
> > include/linux/tpm.h | 3 +--
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> This doesn't really make sense..
>
> The kconfig method is that if IMA requires TPM it should declare so
> and TPM will become non-modular because IMA is non-modular.
>
> There are lots of legitimate use cases for TPM that don't involve IMA
> or keyring.
In what context would it make sense to have TPM core as a module? I
forgot to add RFC tag this patch. Did not meant to push it to
mainline but more to rise up the discussion.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists