Hello, On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 15:55:09 +0300 Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:15:58PM +0000, > alexander.stef...@infineon.com wrote: > > But is that just because nobody bothered to implement the necessary > > logic or for some other reason? > > We do not want user space to access broken hardware. It's a huge risk > for system stability and potentially could be used for evil purposes. > > This is not going to mainline as it is not suitable for general > consumption. You must use a patched kernel if you want this. > > /Jarkko > It has been pointed out that userspace applications that use direct IO access exist for the purpose. So using a kernel driver is an improvement over that if the interface is otherwise sane. What do you expect is the potential for instability or evil use? With a kernel driver arbitrating the bus access as it would in any other case I do not see much potential for instability. If there are cases when the arbitration fails they can surely be more likely triggered in cases other than userspace sending arbitrary requests to a device which is in a state the kernel does not support but otherwise responsive. If you really think that accessing a device that is in unsupported state at boot (as opposed to getting unto unsupported state during device operation after boot) is a real problem it can be selectable as compile time option so people who do not want the code do not get it. Thanks Michal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
