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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no 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 73722C3A59E for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:35:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B2A2168B for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:35:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727318AbfIBVf0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:35:26 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:6704 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726964AbfIBVfZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:35:25 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098394.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x82LW4fA028398 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:35:24 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2us5ynfnye-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:35:24 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:35:22 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) 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) Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:35:20 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x82LZKsL38731980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:35:20 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CE211C04C; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:35:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520C011C04A; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:35:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.185.123]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 21:35:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: TPM 2.0 Linux sysfs interface From: Mimi Zohar To: Jason Gunthorpe , Tadeusz Struk Cc: Piotr =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kr=F3l?= , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2019 17:35:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190902192632.GB5393@ziepe.ca> References: <3329329f-4bf4-b8cd-dee8-eb36e513c728@3mdeb.com> <20190827010559.GA31752@ziepe.ca> <1567007592.6115.58.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190828161502.GC933@ziepe.ca> <20190902192632.GB5393@ziepe.ca> 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: 19090221-0016-0000-0000-000002A5D648 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19090221-0017-0000-0000-000033063A65 Message-Id: <1567460118.10024.316.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-09-02_09:,, 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=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1909020242 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-09-02 at 16:26 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:20:54PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > > On 8/28/19 9:15 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > >>> So exposing PCRs and things through sysfs is not going to happen. > > >>> > > >>> If you had some very narrowly defined things like version, then > > >>> *maybe* but I think a well defined use case is needed for why this > > >>> needs to be sysfs and can't be done in C as Jarkko explained. > > >> Piotr's request for a sysfs file to differentiate between TPM 1.2 and > > >> TPM 2.0 is a reasonable request and probably could be implemented on > > >> TPM registration. > > >> > > >> If exposing the PCRs through sysfs is not acceptable, then perhaps > > >> suggest an alternative. > > > Use the char dev, this is exactly what is is for. > > > > What about a new /proc entry? > > Currently there are /proc/cpuinfo, /proc/meminfo, /proc/slabinfo... > > What about adding a new /proc/tpminfo that would print info like > > version, number of enabled PCR banks, physical interface [tis|crb], > > vendor, etc. > > I thought we were not really doing new proc entries? > > Why this focus on making some textual output? I don't really care if we define procfs, sysfs, or securityfs file(s) or whether those files are ascii or binary.  Whatever is defined, should be defined for both TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0 (eg. TPM version). Mimi