Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 26 October 2017 at 00:41, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> >> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally >> >> >uacceptable. >> >> >> >> As there was no response to

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 26 October 2017 at 00:41, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> >> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally >> >> >uacceptable. >> >> >> >> As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally > >> >uacceptable. > >> > >> As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know whether > >> it is acceptable or not. > > > > I like the

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally > >> >uacceptable. > >> > >> As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know whether > >> it is acceptable or not. > > > > I like the

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Hi Jarkko, On 24 October 2017 at 23:52, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:05:20PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> > 1. Every user in the kernel is using TPM_ANY_NUM, which means there are >> >no other users. >> >> Completely

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Hi Jarkko, On 24 October 2017 at 23:52, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:05:20PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> > 1. Every user in the kernel is using TPM_ANY_NUM, which means there are >> >no other users. >> >> Completely agree that there is no in kernel

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Am 24. Oktober 2017 20:15:12 MESZ schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen : >On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jason Gunthorpe >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Am 24. Oktober 2017 20:15:12 MESZ schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen : >On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jason Gunthorpe >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar >Muralidharan wrote: >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> >>

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:05:20PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > > 1. Every user in the kernel is using TPM_ANY_NUM, which means there are > >no other users. > > Completely agree that there is no in kernel users yet. And should never be. It's a bogus parameter that makes no

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:05:20PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > > 1. Every user in the kernel is using TPM_ANY_NUM, which means there are > >no other users. > > Completely agree that there is no in kernel users yet. And should never be. It's a bogus parameter that makes no

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jason Gunthorpe > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> Hi Jason, > >> > >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jason Gunthorpe > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> Hi Jason, > >> > >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe > >> wrote: > >> > On

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:37:57AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > tpm-rng is abomination that should be kicked out as soon as possible. > > It wrecks havoc with the power management (TPM chip drivers may go > > into suspend

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:37:57AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > tpm-rng is abomination that should be kicked out as soon as possible. > > It wrecks havoc with the power management (TPM chip drivers may go > > into suspend

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Hi Jason, On 24 October 2017 at 23:16, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:44:30PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> I am wondering why it is wrong. Isn't the chip id valid till it is >> unregistered? If so the rfc is correct. Please

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Hi Jason, On 24 October 2017 at 23:16, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:44:30PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> I am wondering why it is wrong. Isn't the chip id valid till it is >> unregistered? If so the rfc is correct. Please explain, may be I am >> missing

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:44:30PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > I am wondering why it is wrong. Isn't the chip id valid till it is > unregistered? If so the rfc is correct. Please explain, may be I am > missing something. The lifetime is a bit complicated, but the general rule in

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:44:30PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > I am wondering why it is wrong. Isn't the chip id valid till it is > unregistered? If so the rfc is correct. Please explain, may be I am > missing something. The lifetime is a bit complicated, but the general rule in

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 23:07, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> tpm-rng is abomination that should be kicked out as soon as possible. >> It wrecks havoc with the power management (TPM chip drivers may go >>

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 23:07, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> tpm-rng is abomination that should be kicked out as soon as possible. >> It wrecks havoc with the power management (TPM chip drivers may go >> into suspend state, but tpm_rng

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > tpm-rng is abomination that should be kicked out as soon as possible. > It wrecks havoc with the power management (TPM chip drivers may go > into suspend state, but tpm_rng does not do any power management and > happily forwards

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 10:02:00AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > tpm-rng is abomination that should be kicked out as soon as possible. > It wrecks havoc with the power management (TPM chip drivers may go > into suspend state, but tpm_rng does not do any power management and > happily forwards

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24,

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> > >>

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 21:53, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:14, Jarkko Sakkinen >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 21:53, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:14, Jarkko Sakkinen >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > On 24 October 2017 at 21:14, Jarkko Sakkinen > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > On 24 October 2017 at 21:14, Jarkko Sakkinen > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > >> > >> > >-int

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 21:41, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 21:41, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> > >> >>

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > > > >> Please check the RFC [1]. It

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:37:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > > > >> Please check the RFC [1]. It does use chip id. The rfc has

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Hi Jason, On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> Please check the RFC [1]. It does use chip id. The rfc has issues and >> has to be fixed but still there could be

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

Hi Jason, On 24 October 2017 at 21:25, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> Please check the RFC [1]. It does use chip id. The rfc has issues and >> has to be fixed but still there could be users of the API. >> >> 1.

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > Please check the RFC [1]. It does use chip id. The rfc has issues and > has to be fixed but still there could be users of the API. > > 1. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg28282.html That patch isn't safe

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:21:15PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > Please check the RFC [1]. It does use chip id. The rfc has issues and > has to be fixed but still there could be users of the API. > > 1. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg28282.html That patch isn't safe

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 21:14, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: >> >> > >-int tpm_pcr_extend(u32 chip_num, int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) >> >

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 24 October 2017 at 21:14, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: >> >> > >-int tpm_pcr_extend(u32 chip_num, int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) >> > >+int tpm_pcr_extend(int pcr_idx,

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > >-int tpm_pcr_extend(u32 chip_num, int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > > >+int tpm_pcr_extend(int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > > > { > > > > > > I think every kernel

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:31:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > >-int tpm_pcr_extend(u32 chip_num, int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > > >+int tpm_pcr_extend(int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > > > { > > > > > > I think every kernel

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > I think every kernel internal TPM driver API should be called with the > tpm_chip as a parameter. This is in foresight of namespacing of IMA where we > want to provide the flexibility of passing a dedicated vTPM to each > namespace

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > I think every kernel internal TPM driver API should be called with the > tpm_chip as a parameter. This is in foresight of namespacing of IMA where we > want to provide the flexibility of passing a dedicated vTPM to each > namespace

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > >-int tpm_pcr_extend(u32 chip_num, int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > >+int tpm_pcr_extend(int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > > { > > > I think every kernel internal TPM driver API should be called with the > tpm_chip as a parameter.

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 10:07:31AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > >-int tpm_pcr_extend(u32 chip_num, int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > >+int tpm_pcr_extend(int pcr_idx, const u8 *hash) > > { > > > I think every kernel internal TPM driver API should be called with the > tpm_chip as a parameter.

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 10/23/2017 08:38 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: The reasoning is simple and obvious. Since every call site passes the value TPM_ANY_NUM (0x) the parameter does not have right to exist. Refined the documentation of the corresponding functions. Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API

On 10/23/2017 08:38 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: The reasoning is simple and obvious. Since every call site passes the value TPM_ANY_NUM (0x) the parameter does not have right to exist. Refined the documentation of the corresponding functions. Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen ---