From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36081C04EB8 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:24:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB3D72081C for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:24:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org EB3D72081C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725856AbeLBPYH (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2018 10:24:07 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:56444 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725885AbeLBPYH (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Dec 2018 10:24:07 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wB2FNaXl020100 for ; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 10:24:02 -0500 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2p48unfv8g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 02 Dec 2018 10:24:02 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:24:01 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:23:58 -0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id wB2FNvYO52690990 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:23:57 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4766EA405B; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:23:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73D5A405C; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:23:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.106.63]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:23:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: TPM legacy From: Mimi Zohar To: Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 10:23:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20181130233501.GA32256@linux.intel.com> References: <20181130233501.GA32256@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18120215-0016-0000-0000-0000022FEF5C X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18120215-0017-0000-0000-000032886000 Message-Id: <1543764226.4216.205.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-12-02_11:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=840 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1812020147 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 15:35 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Hi > > Some things that came up at LSS. > > First, would it be time to drop 1.1b bits? What advantages this would > bring? AFAIK Peter is a strong supporter of this. > > In the hall way discussions, I talked with Tomas Winkler that it would > make sense to add CONFIG_TCG_TPM1 flag to completely leave out all TPM > 1.x bits from the kernel. > > TPM 1.x stuff is not exactly legacy but especially on IoT does not make > sense to carry that code with. New systems might be shipping with only TPM 2.0, but it still needs to be supported for existing systems, probably for quite a while.  Having the option to build the kernel with TPM 1.2, TPM 2.0 or both, is acceptable. Mimi