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=-2.3 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 DA2B5C3A5A2 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:23:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B7B215EA for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:23:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729138AbfICNXO (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:23:14 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:22230 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728992AbfICNXO (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:23:14 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x83DMedE098659 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:23:12 -0400 Received: from e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.103]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uss0n80v7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:23:11 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:23:10 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp07.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.137) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 3 Sep 2019 14:23:07 +0100 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 x83DN6kl42664110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:23:06 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1C0A4066; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:23:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B308A4054; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:23:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.181.32]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:23:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: TPM 2.0 Linux sysfs interface From: Mimi Zohar To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: Tadeusz Struk , Piotr =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kr=F3l?= , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 09:23:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190903130713.GA5851@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> <1567460118.10024.316.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190903055523.GA4500@ziepe.ca> <1567511346.10024.365.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190903130713.GA5851@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: 19090313-0028-0000-0000-000003971BA8 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19090313-0029-0000-0000-000024596944 Message-Id: <1567516984.10024.376.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-09-03_02:,, 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-1909030141 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 10:07 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:49:06AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 02:55 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 05:35:18PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > 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). > > > > > > Use an ioctl on the char dev? > > > > Both TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0 export the TPM event log as > > security/tpmX/binary_bios_measurements.  Wouldn't it make more sense > > to group the TPM information together, exporting other TPM information > > as securityfs files? > > I don't know anything about security_fs, sorry Jarkko, any comments/suggestions? thanks, Mimi