On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:38:42PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Thu Oct 24 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:18:48PM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I wonder what to do with this patch "ima: skip verifying TPM 2.0 PCR values" [1]. > > > Is it a correct way to differentiate between TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0? > > > Or something else should be applied? > > > > > > How is the work on TPM 2.0 Linux sysfs interface? > > > But even it's done in near future, we'd still need some way for older kernels. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Petr > > > > > > [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1100733/ > > > > version_major sysfs file would be acceptable if someone wants to proceed > > and send such patch. > > > > Also replicants for durations and timeouts files would make sense for > > TPM 2.0. > > > > /Jarkko > > Is it as simple as doing this? > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c > index edfa89160010..fd8eb8d8945c 100644 > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c > @@ -309,7 +309,17 @@ static ssize_t timeouts_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, > } > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(timeouts); > > -static struct attribute *tpm_dev_attrs[] = { > +static ssize_t version_major_show(struct device *dev, > + struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf) > +{ > + struct tpm_chip *chip = to_tpm_chip(dev); > + return sprintf(buf, "TPM%s\n", chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2 > + ? "2.0" : "1.2"); Probably no TPM prefix here The usual sysfs naming would be more like 'major_version' Jason
