linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: Introduce TPM_IOC_SET

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <D5BMMJYMVWKJ.3MIGB8KW34PR2@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 12:38:53 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@....de>,
 "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>, <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
 <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, <bp@...en8.de>,
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
 <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
 <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <hpa@...or.com>,
 <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com>,
 <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 <luto@...capital.net>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
 <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>, <ross.philipson@...cle.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 <trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] tpm, tpm_tis: Introduce TPM_IOC_SET_LOCALITY

On Sat Nov 2, 2024 at 11:02 AM EET, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Same for the ioctl() [as well as the read-write sysfs node]: looking
> at the code (patch 19/20) it doesn't seem like user space needs to be
> able to modify this at all, at least not for the patch set as
> presented. So for now, can we just stick with making the sysfs node
> read-only?

Short answer: I have no idea. I would not mind that but neither
the commit message for TPM give a clue on this. Actually, I *do
not care* if it is RO and RW but I'm neither good at guessing
random shit.

I haad to assume it was *needed* for reason that I do not know
given that sysfs attribute was RW.

BR, Jarkko