On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:03:18PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 05/04/2017 02:40 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 07:14:27AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > On 05/04/2017 05:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 07:40:48PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > On 05/03/2017 06:37 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 09:02:18AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > > > Add an ioctl to request that the locality be prepended to every > > > > > > > TPM > > > > > > > command. > > > > > > Don't really understand this change. Why locality is prenpended? > > > > > Commands can be executed under locality 0-3 and for some commands it > > > > > is > > > > > important to know which locality a user may have chosen. How else > > > > > should we > > > > > convey that locality to the TPM emulator ? > > > > Why this is not in the commit message? > > > > > > > > More scalable way to do this would be to have a set of vtpm proxy > > > > commands. There could be a command for requesting and releasing > > > > locality. That would be more clean. > > > I would think that if someone wanted to use locality it's the client using > > > /dev/tpm(rm)0 calling an ioctl or so and the vtpm proxy then merely > > > passing > > > that locality to the backend (TPM emulator). I suppose the intention is to > > > support something like that following the addition of the new functions > > > request_locality and release_locality? > > What if we later on want to pass something else than locality to the > > backend? How that will work out? > > 'push' more data in front. 'pop' off by recipient. We could wrap the command > in some form. > > Stefan
I would find having a set of special commands cleaner. Prepending sounds like a quick hack to me, not really something that should exist in the mainline. /Jarkko
