On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:35:18PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Mon, 2019-09-02 at 16:26 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:20:54PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > > > On 8/28/19 9:15 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > >>> So exposing PCRs and things through sysfs is not going to happen. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you had some very narrowly defined things like version, then > > > >>> *maybe* but I think a well defined use case is needed for why this > > > >>> needs to be sysfs and can't be done in C as Jarkko explained. > > > >> Piotr's request for a sysfs file to differentiate between TPM 1.2 and > > > >> TPM 2.0 is a reasonable request and probably could be implemented on > > > >> TPM registration. > > > >> > > > >> If exposing the PCRs through sysfs is not acceptable, then perhaps > > > >> suggest an alternative. > > > > Use the char dev, this is exactly what is is for. > > > > > > What about a new /proc entry? > > > Currently there are /proc/cpuinfo, /proc/meminfo, /proc/slabinfo... > > > What about adding a new /proc/tpminfo that would print info like > > > version, number of enabled PCR banks, physical interface [tis|crb], > > > vendor, etc. > > > > I thought we were not really doing new proc entries? > > > > Why this focus on making some textual output? > > I don't really care if we define procfs, sysfs, or securityfs file(s) > or whether those files are ascii or binary. Whatever is defined, > should be defined for both TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0 (eg. TPM version). Use an ioctl on the char dev? Jason
