Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log

From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Kenneth Goldman <kgoldman@us.ibm.com>,
	"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" 
	<tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:46:32 +1100 (AEDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1702010842220.28891@namei.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170131203452.523ckw4aphxdsndq@intel.com>

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

> James,
> 
> The discussion is about two features:
> 
> 1. Extension to tpm_pcr_extend() (used by IMA) to extend all PCR banks
>    instead of just SHA-1 banks. It is recommended by TCG to do so in
>    order to prevent malicious use of PCRs.
> 2. TPM 2.0 event log with backend support for OF device tree (for
>    getting address where you can grab it).
> 
> These are required as baseline to implement full TPM 2.0 support for
> IMA. The commits are fairly well baked and went through many iterations.
> I've tested tpm_pcr_extend() patches. I haven't tested event log patches
> but have extensively reviewed them and Ken Goldman has tested them with
> POWER hardware.
> 
> I don't believe that there is major risk to put them already into 4.11
> but it is fairly late so I just want a second opinion before putting
> them into pull request.
> 

I'll take this for 4.11.  IMA + TPM 2.0 is still developmental and not in 
wide use, afaik.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>