From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936320AbdADNu0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:50:26 -0500 Received: from [195.159.176.226] ([195.159.176.226]:44619 "EHLO blaine.gmane.org" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934588AbdADNuT (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 08:50:19 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Ken Goldman Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC 0/4] RFC: in-kernel resource manager Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:21:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20170102132213.22880-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1483374980.2458.13.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170102193320.trawto65nkjccbao@intel.com> <1483393248.2458.32.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170103135121.4kh3jld5gaq3ptj4@intel.com> <1483461370.2464.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170103214702.GC29656@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 In-Reply-To: <20170103214702.GC29656@obsidianresearch.com> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 1/3/2017 4:47 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I think we should also consider TPM 1.2 support in all of this, it is > still a very popular piece of hardware and it is equally able to > support a RM. I suspect that TPM 2.0 and TPM 1.2 are so different that there may be little or no code in common. My immediate need is for a 2.0 resource manager, since it's a gap in the technology, while 1.2 does have tcsd. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ken Goldman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] RFC: in-kernel resource manager Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 17:21:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20170102132213.22880-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1483374980.2458.13.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170102193320.trawto65nkjccbao@intel.com> <1483393248.2458.32.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170103135121.4kh3jld5gaq3ptj4@intel.com> <1483461370.2464.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20170103214702.GC29656@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170103214702.GC29656-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tpmdd-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Cc: linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On 1/3/2017 4:47 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I think we should also consider TPM 1.2 support in all of this, it is > still a very popular piece of hardware and it is equally able to > support a RM. I suspect that TPM 2.0 and TPM 1.2 are so different that there may be little or no code in common. My immediate need is for a 2.0 resource manager, since it's a gap in the technology, while 1.2 does have tcsd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot