netdev - Re: [PATCH v4] Documentation: tpm

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: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 04:14:36 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "Daniel P. Smith"
 <dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com>, <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>, "Lino Sanfilippo"
 <l.sanfilippo@...bus.com>, "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>, "Peter Huewe"
 <peterhuewe@....de>, "James Bottomley"
 <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>, "Alexander Steffen"
 <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>, <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Randy Dunlap"
 <rdunlap@...radead.org>, "Richard Cochran" <richardcochran@...il.com>,
 "open list:PTP HARDWARE CLOCK SUPPORT:Keyword:(?:b|_)ptp(?:b|_)"
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Documentation: tpm_tis

On Sat Mar 23, 2024 at 8:40 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Would it be worth clarifying here that one of those interfaces is 
> > defined in the Mobile TPM specification, which also refers to its 
> > interface as the CRB interface. In the past, this has caused great 
> > confusion when working with individuals from the embedded community, 
> > e.g., Arm. The Mobile TPM CRB interface, which can also be found being 
> > used by some generations of AMD fTPM, is a doorbell style interface 
> > using general-purpose memory. I would also point out that the Mobile TPM 
> > CRB interface does not provide for the concept of localities.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree but it is out of scope for this. I'm not
> sure tho why "mobile" CRB would ever need that sort of separate
> dicussion.
>
> Some CRB implementations have localities some don't, and also fTPM
> implementations on x86 vary, no need to state that separately for
> mobile.

I.e. the variance exist but it is not "mobile" specific.

E.g. when I developed tpm_crb in 2014 at that time Intel PTT only
had a single locality (AFAIK later multiple localities were added
to support TXT).

In all cases this tpm_crb discussion is not really part of tpm_tis
discussion.

BR, Jarkko