On Tue May 28, 2024 at 12:36 AM EEST, James Bottomley wrote: > 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. It is used only in tpm2-sessions.c and for the null key so there it should be. And it is also lacking the associated documentation. Now both name and context it is used is lost. BR, Jarkko
