On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 03:29:15PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 11:11 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 07:39:22PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > I think therefore that tpmns<n> for TPM Namespace would be very > > > > appropriate. > > > > > > Makes sense. We can go with tpmns. > > > > When we have talked about TPM namespaces in the past it has been > > around the idea of restricting which TPMs the namespace has access > > too and changing the 'kernel tpm' for that namespace. > > Well, you know, nothing in the TPM Space code prevents us from exposing > the namespace so that it could be shared. However, I think the > namespace follows connect (device open) paradigm is pretty much the > behaviour everyone (including the kernel) wants, mostly because TPM2 > has such a tiny amount of resources that you're always dealing with > loadable keys meaning you don't really want to see anyone else's > volatile state.
I'm not arguing with that use model, I am asking what do you want to call the future feature that restricts which TPMs a process can view if you want to use the word namespace for the resource manager? This is something Stephen B has been exploring in conjunction with vtpm. (eg restrict a container to only use a single vtpm and ban it from the system tpm) Jason
