linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: Add major

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]

Message-ID: <20191031210437.GB10507@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Oct 2019 23:04:37 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: Add major_version sysfs file

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:56:48AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 16:22 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:43:42AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:17:31AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 02:05:07PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > > > On Mon Oct 28 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:31:03PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > +	return sprintf(buf, "%s\n", chip->flags &
> > > > > > > TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2
> > > > > > > +		       ? "2.0" : "1.2");
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is not right. Should be either "1" or "2".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > /Jarkko
> > > > > 
> > > > > Okay I will fix that up. Do we have a final decision on the
> > > > > file name,
> > > > > major_version versus version_major?
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I don't see how major_version would make any sense. It is
> > > > not as future proof as version_major. Still waiting for Jason's
> > > > feedback for this.
> > > 
> > > $ find /sys/ -name  "*version*"
> > > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:17.0/ata1/host0/scsi_host/host0/ahc
> > > i_host_version
> > > /sys/devices/virtual/net/docker0/bridge/multicast_mld_version
> > > /sys/devices/virtual/net/docker0/bridge/multicast_igmp_version
> > > /sys/firmware/efi/esrt/entries/entry0/lowest_supported_fw_version
> > > /sys/firmware/efi/esrt/entries/entry0/last_attempt_version
> > > /sys/firmware/efi/esrt/entries/entry0/fw_version
> > > /sys/module/acpi/parameters/acpica_version
> > > 
> > > etc..
> > > 
> > > Not a single example of the backward version.
> > > 
> > > Most likely it should be called 'tpm_version'
> > 
> > The postfix gives tells the part of the version number that the file
> > reports. If you really want to add the prefix, then the appropriate
> > name would be tpm_version_major.
> > 
> > I'd still go with just version_major as tpm_ prefix is somewhat
> > redundant.
> 
> You have to be careful with overly generic names in sysfs ... this is
> what happened to us in SCSI:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=42caa0edabd6a0a392ec36a5f0943924e4954311
> 
> That's not to say version_major is wrong ... plenty of sysfs files have
> generic names like this, it's just that tpm_version_major might be more
> future proof.

I'm cool with that name as long as the postfix also stays.

/Jarkko