On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:53:43AM -0700, Scott Bauer wrote: > > Maybe. I need to look at the TCG spec again (oh my good, what a fucking > > mess), but if I remember the context if it is the whole nvme controller > > and not just a namespace, so a block_device might be the wrong context. > > Then again we can always go from the block_device to the controller > > fairly easily. So instead of adding the security operation to the > > block_device_operations which we don't really need for now maybe we > > should add a security_conext to the block device so that we can avoid > > all the lookup code? > > I spent some time this morning reading through the numerous specs/documents, > with a lot of coffee. > > Specifically in: > https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TCG_SWG_SIIS_Version_1_02_Revision_1_00_20111230.pdf > > 5.5.2 > Namespace > > A target that has multiple Namespaces MAY have multiple TPers. Each TPer > SHALL be associated with a different Namespace. Every Namespace on a device > is not required to have a TPer, but Namespaces that support the TCG Core > specification commands and functionality SHALL have a TPer. A TPer SHALL only > be associated with exactly one Namespace. A Namespace MAY have no TPer. > > From reading that it seems we will probably have to keep it at the block > layer, > since its possible to have a valid "Locking range 1" on n1 and a "Locking > range 1" > on n2.
Thanks for tracking that down! Specifically for NVMe, security send/recieve requires NSID, so it is a little more difficult to get to that if we're not using the abstracton that contains the namespace. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html