On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 09:23 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 10:07 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:49:06AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 02:55 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > > > Both TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0 export the TPM event log as > > > security/tpmX/binary_bios_measurements. Wouldn't it make more sense > > > to group the TPM information together, exporting other TPM information > > > as securityfs files? > > > > I don't know anything about security_fs, sorry > > Jarkko, any comments/suggestions? On exactly what? /Jarkko
