[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181108230700.GA8038@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 01:07:00 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Struk, Tadeusz" <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 16/17] tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of
tpm_transmit()
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 06:38:59PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > Call tpm_chip_start() and tpm_chip_stop() in
> >
> > * tpm_try_get_ops() and tpm_put_ops()
> > * tpm_chip_register()
> > * tpm2_del_space()
> >
> > And remove these calls from tpm_transmit(). The core reason for this change
> > is that in tpm_vtpm_proxy a locality change requires a virtual TPM command
> > (a command made up just for that driver).
> >
> I don't think you can do that, locality has to be request for each
> command, as for example tboot can request higher locality any time.
That could be a potential problem. How tboot intervention gets prevented
without this patch?
> Same for cmd_ready()/go_idle() powergatin, you will prevent the whole
> platform entering power save state.
Why would you want that in a middle of using the TPM anyway?
> Thanks
> Tomas
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists