From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Stefan Berger" Subject: Re: Question on Linux TSS architecture design (kernel vs. user space access) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:23:11 -0500 Message-ID: <201512211423.tBLENMcx015842@d03av03.boulder.ibm.com> References: <201512161804.tBGI47vu000331@d01av02.pok.ibm.com><201512171523.tBHFNlJ6013434@d03av03.boulder.ibm.com><9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724DA58648F1@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de><201512171620.tBHGK3GE030569@d03av04.boulder.ibm.com><9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724DA586493C@EXCH2010A.sit.fraunhofer.de><20151218105148.GA12882@intel.com> <20151218105323.GB12882@intel.com><20151218114131.GA3287@intel.com>, <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724DA586A57C@EXCH2010B.sit.fraunhofer.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7099680445285729315==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9F48E1A823B03B4790B7E6E69430724DA586A57C-wI35/lLZEdRyXeJKmmMAp2SU2VBt9E6NG9Ur7JDdleE@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tpmdd-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: "Fuchs, Andreas" Cc: "tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org" , Kenneth Goldman List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net --===============7099680445285729315== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004F08E985257F22_=" --=_alternative 004F08E985257F22_= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" "Fuchs, Andreas" wrote on 12/21/2015=20 08:22:04 AM: >=20 > Let me emphasise this even more. It would be greate to have a=20 kernel-space TPM > Resource Manager (everybody thinks to agree), but it would also bit=20 > a big module > and a big programming investment. >=20 > I ask the tpmdd-maintainers to check (reconcile with parent subsystem > maintainers) if a 3-5 kLoC module would be generally acceptable for a=20 > TPM-ResourceManager? Does that include TPM 2 only or also TPM 1.2 ? The need for a light-RM=20 inside the kernel is also there for TPM 1.2. Regards, Stefan --=_alternative 004F08E985257F22_= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" "Fuchs, Andreas" <andreas.fuchs-iXjGqz/onsDV0Folhc9sRw@public.gmane.org= fer.de> wrote on 12/21/2015 08:22:04 AM:


= >
> Let me emphasise this even more. It would be greate to have a= kernel-space TPM
> Resource Manager (everybody thinks to agree), but it would also= bit
> a big module
> and a big programming investment.
> > I ask the tpmdd-maintainers to check (reconcile with parent subsystem=
> maintainers) if a 3-5 kLoC module would be generally acceptable for a
> TPM-ResourceManager?

Does = that include TPM 2 only or also TPM 1.2 ? The need for a light-RM inside the kernel
is = also there for TPM 1.2.

Regards,
   Stefan

--=_alternative 004F08E985257F22_=-- --===============7099680445285729315== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --===============7099680445285729315== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel --===============7099680445285729315==--