Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:19:38 -0600 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 12/12] tpm: TPM2 sysfs attributes |
| |
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
| |