On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:15:10PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 03:17:39PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > 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? > > By definition the use of broken hardware can have unpredictable effects. > Use a patched kernel if you want to do it. > > /Jarkko
I.e. too many unknown unknowns for mainline. I could consider a solution for the TPM error case on self-test that allows only restricted subset of commands. The patch description did not go to *any* detail on how it is used so practically it's unreviewable at this point. There's a big burder of proof and now there's only hand waving. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
