On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:02:34PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > The pcrs file never conformed to the sysfs rules, if TPM2 is getting a
> > whole new file set, I wouldn't mind seeing it not include the
> > non-conformant ones. What do you think?
>
> I think that it's better to put extra focus on these sysfs attributes in
> first patch set because it's user space visible. What's wrong in the
> current pcrs file?
Each PCR should be a distinct sysfs file, probably with a
directory. One Value Per File is the rule.
> > > +static ssize_t caps_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> > > *attr,
> > > + char *buf)
> > > +{
> >
> > Ditto.. The manfacturer number should probably be its own file
>
> Maybe here would make sense to have three files:
>
> - manufacturer
> - firmware_1
> - firmware_2
>
> More or less following the name of the TPM properties in the
> specification.
Probably, maybe firmware_1/2 could be combined if they are the same
logical value? (I've always expressed it as firmware_1.firwmare_2?)
> I did not fully understand the comment about tpm2 flag. Why driver
> cannot set it when it initializes the device like with this based
> on value of the STS3?
I was talking about the /dev/ char device - a random application today
will open it and send TPM1 formed messages. Those should be refused
with EINVAL for a TPM2 chip unless the application declares via IOCTL
that it will be sending TPM2 messages.
Otherwise the API contract for the /dev/ device (write TPM1 formed
messages) is broken..
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
