On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:57:11PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 09:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Again, which makes it seem like securityfs is not the thing for this, as
> > it describes the hardware, not a security model which is what securityfs
> > has been for in the past, right?
> It describes the hardware platform. From a fwupd perspective I don't
> mind if the BC attributes are read from securityfs, sysfs or even read
> from an offset in a file from /proc... I guess sysfs makes sense if
> securityfs is defined for things like the LSM or lockdown status,
> although I also thought sysfs was for devices *in* the platform, not
> the platform itself.

Have you looked at /sys/devices/system/ in a while?  :)

> I guess exposing the platform registers in sysfs
> is no more weird than exposing things like the mei device and rfkill.

It is attributes that describe the hardware the system is running on,
which is what sysfs is for.


greg k-h

Reply via email to