linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] char: tpm: add new driver for tpm i2c ptp

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 05 Jul 2019 14:28:07 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Oshri Alkobi <oshrialkoby85@...il.com>,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>
Cc:     robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, peterhuewe@....de,
        jgg@...pe.ca, arnd@...db.de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        oshri.alkoby@...oton.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        gcwilson@...ibm.com, kgoldman@...ibm.com, nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        dan.morav@...oton.com, tomer.maimon@...oton.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] char: tpm: add new driver for tpm i2c ptp

On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 12:48 -0500, Oshri Alkobi wrote:
> Alex, Jarkko, thank you very much for your feedbacks!

Please configure your email client to use plain text.

> I totally agree, there are some duplications that can be common, indeed it
> will require some work in tpm_tis_core.
> Since I believe it is not going to happen soon, I would suggest to examine
> what duplications can currently be dropped from the new driver, so the kernel
> will support the PTP I2C interface in the meantime.
> I will appreciate getting ideas about any tpm_tis_core logic that currently
> can be used as is by the new drive.

I rather wait for a solution that integrates with our mature stack for
TIS (or these days FIFO) than integrate something half-baked. If you
want something in, please do right things right.

What you are proposing would mean maintaining duplicate stacks forever.

> Since the TIS is an old specification that mostly defines FIFO for TPM1.2 I
> would say the name tpm_tis_i2c does not completely reflect its goal. However
> we really don't have any problem with any name that the group will agree on.
> Does tpm_ptp_i2c sound better than the current name?

Absolutely not going to use that name. The naming convention is what
it is for other drivers that are adapt tpm_tis_core to different HW
interfaces.

/Jarkko