linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 4/6] 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]

Message-ID: <20200204120048.GA28552@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 4 Feb 2020 14:00:48 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.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>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 4/6] tpm: tpm_tis_spi: Support cr50 devices

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 08:15:49AM +0100, Alexander Steffen wrote:
> The scripts are effectively using modprobe/rmmod/etc. and those need the
> name. modprobe can be fixed by defining an alias, but this does not work for
> rmmod. Many other things also depend on the name, e.g. module blacklisting
> or the output of lsmod, where people might now get confused by the
> difference between "tpm_tis_spi_mod" and "tpm_tis_i2c". Also, there are many
> tutorials out there, that explicitly tell users to run something like
> "modprobe tpm_tis_spi", which won't work anymore now.
> 
> So, if there is a good reason to break compatibility, I'm fine with that.
> But in this case, isn't there some way to achieve the desired functionality
> without changing the name? Even if it is a little more complex than the
> three-line change above, that would probably be worth it.

Nope, you're right. I'll work out a fix for this and
add you as reported-by.

/Jarkko