On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:21:49PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:16:35PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > Current trusted keys framework is tightly coupled to use TPM device as > > an underlying implementation which makes it difficult for implementations > > like Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) etc. to provide trusted keys > > support in case platform doesn't posses a TPM device. > > > > So this patch tries to add generic trusted keys framework where underlying > > implementations like TPM, TEE etc. could be easily plugged-in. > > I would rephrase this a bit: > > "Add a generic trusted keys framework where underlying implementations > can be easily plugged in. Create struct trusted_key_ops to achieve this, > which contains necessary functions of a backend." > > I remember asking about this approach that what if there was just a > header for trusted key functions and a compile time decision, which C > file to include instead of ops struct. I don't remember if these was a > conclusion on this or not. > > E.g. lets say you have a device with TEE and TPM, should you be able > to be use both at run-time? I might play along how this works now but > somehow, in the commit message preferably, it should be conclude why > one alternative is chosen over another. We must somehow seal this discussion because the other changes are based on this decision. I don't think tail of this patch set takes a long time spin. This is the main architectural decision. /Jarkko
