On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 22:53 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon May 27, 2024 at 8:57 PM EEST, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-05-27 at 18:34 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: [...] > > > While looking at code I started to wanted what was the reasoning > > > for adding *undocumented* "TPM2_OA_TMPL" in include/linux/tpm.h. > > > It should really be in tpm2-sessions.c and named something like > > > TPM2_NULL_KEY_OA or similar. > > > > Well, because you asked for it. I originally had all the flags > > spelled out and I'm not a fan of this obscurity, but you have to do > > stuff like this to get patches accepted: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CZCKTWU6ZCC9.2UTEQPEVICYHL@suppilovahvero/ > > I still think the constant does make sense. I'm not so sure. The TCG simply defines it as a collection of flags and every TPM tool set I've seen simply uses a list of flags as well. The original design was that the template would be in this one place and everything else would call into it. I think the reason all template construction looks similar is for ease of auditing (it's easy to get things, particularly the flags, wrong). If it only has one use case, it should be spelled out but if someone else would use it then it should be in the tpm.h shared header. > The current constant does not really imply that it is for the null > key, Well, it isn't exactly: it's the required flag set for all primaries. James > it is defined in the wrong file and has no actual legit > documentation to go with it.
