linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] tpm: tpm_tis

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>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 07 Sep 2019 19:20:46 +0200
From:   Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Andrey Pronin <apronin@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@...omium.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] tpm: tpm_tis_spi: Support cr50 devices

Hi Jarkko,

Am Samstag, 7. September 2019, 19:04:15 CEST schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen:
> On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 09:52 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > That's fair. I'll put the Kconfig option back. There's still the small
> > issue of what to do about the module name. Should I rename the
> > tpm_tis_spi.c file to something else so that the module can keep the
> > same name? Or was the tpm_tis_spi_mod.ko trick from v5 good enough?
> 
> Not sure I understood the question correctly but how I think
> this should be deployed is:
> 
> - A boolean CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI_CR50.
> - tpm_tis_spi_cr50.c that gets compiled in as part of tpm_tis_spi
>   when the config option is selected.
> 
> I think this would best follow the conventions that are in place
> already. Please tell if I got something wrong or if there is some
> bottleneck in this framework but this is anyway what I would prefer
> with the knowledge I have...

There is an implementation detail to iron out:

Doing

	obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI) += tpm_tis_spi.o cr50_spi.o

as in this patch results in it failing to build as a module, due to them
getting compiled to separate modules, yt sharing code. So I guess doing

	obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI) += tpm_tis_spi.o
	obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI_CR50) += cr50_spi.o

will result in the same error, hence the question of doing something like

	obj-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI) += tpm_tis_spi_mod.o
	tpm_tis_spi_mod-y := tpm_tis_spi.o
	tpm_tis_spi_mod-$(CONFIG_TCG_TIS_SPI_CR50) += cr50_spi.o

so that sources get compiled and the module getting build from the result.


Heiko