Re: TPM 2.0 Linux sysfs interface

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux