[PATCH] tpm: add support for partial reads
Tadeusz Struk
tadeusz.struk at intel.com
Thu Jul 19 20:12:19 UTC 2018
On 07/19/2018 12:52 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> The ABI break is the error case as I outlined above. We can't assume
> everyone uses the current interface without getting an error and one
> error and your hosed is a nasty failure case to change the interface
> to.
Well, if there is a broken application out there that doesn't work today
it will not work after this change neither.
> Plus, if you assume everyone is passing 4k buffers, why would you
> even need the fragmentation case?
So that people don't need to do this anymore and we can run a
spec compliant TCTI on top of /dev/tpm<N>.
>
>>> It might be possible to layer the behaviour you want compatibly
>>> into the current device structure (say an ioctl to switch to the
>>> fragment behaviour) but I've got to ask why we'd go to the
>>> complexity without a use case?
>> New IOCTL would add extra complexity, which isn't necessary.
> So what's wrong with fragmenting in the layer above the device driver
> (in userspace) and not actually changing the kernel?
Because it is much easier to implement in the driver, and
we can run a spec compliant TCTI on top of /dev/tpm<N>.
Thanks,
--
Tadeusz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list