[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2752fdf-c89f-6f57-956e-ad035d32aec6@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 10:05:49 -0500
From: Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, npiggin@...il.com,
christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, Dov Murik <dovmurik@...ux.ibm.com>,
George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Russell Currey <ruscur@...sell.cc>,
Andrew Donnellan <ajd@...ux.ibm.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: define a firmware security filesystem named
fwsecurityfs
On 11/22/22 18:21, Nayna wrote:
>
> From the perspective of our use case, we need to expose firmware
> security objects to userspace for management. Not all of the objects
> pre-exist and we would like to allow root to create them from userspace.
>
> From a unification perspective, I have considered a common location at
> /sys/firmware/security for managing any platform's security objects.
> And I've proposed a generic filesystem, which could be used by any
> platform to represent firmware security objects via
> /sys/firmware/security.
>
> Here are some alternatives to generic filesystem in discussion:
>
> 1. Start with a platform-specific filesystem. If more platforms would
> like to use the approach, it can be made generic. We would still have
> a common location of /sys/firmware/security and new code would live in
> arch. This is my preference and would be the best fit for our use case.
>
> 2. Use securityfs. This would mean modifying it to satisfy other use
> cases, including supporting userspace file creation. I don't know if
> the securityfs maintainer would find that acceptable. I would also
> still want some way to expose variables at /sys/firmware/security.
>
> 3. Use a sysfs-based approach. This would be a platform-specific
> implementation. However, sysfs has a similar issue to securityfs for
> file creation. When I tried it in RFC v1[1], I had to implement a
> workaround to achieve that.
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20220122005637.28199-3-nayna@linux.ibm.com/
>
Hi Greg,
Based on the discussions so far, is Option 1, described above, an
acceptable next step?
Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna
Powered by blists - more mailing lists