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 B5815C3A5A1 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9865422CED for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726864AbfH1PxU (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:53:20 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:20502 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726368AbfH1PxU (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:53:20 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7SFq5tk006738 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:53:19 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2unu8d3j8n-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:53:19 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:53:17 +0100 Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.192) 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) Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:53:15 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x7SFqqfU36897238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:52:52 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11889A4054; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0ADA405B; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.129.156]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:53:13 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: TPM 2.0 Linux sysfs interface From: Mimi Zohar To: Jason Gunthorpe , Piotr =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kr=F3l?= Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:53:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20190827010559.GA31752@ziepe.ca> References: <3329329f-4bf4-b8cd-dee8-eb36e513c728@3mdeb.com> <20190827010559.GA31752@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: 19082815-0016-0000-0000-000002A3F13F X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19082815-0017-0000-0000-0000330442BA Message-Id: <1567007592.6115.58.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-08-28_08:,, 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-1908280161 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2019-08-26 at 22:05 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > The sysfs is not done, fundamentally, because the sysfs structure of > the existing TPM1 stuff is grandfathered in, and doing anything like > it for TPM2 is a complete NAK for not following the normal sysfs > interface design rules, particularly of one value per file. This is a > big part of why it was dropped for TPM2. The original TPM 2.0 support was missing a lot of TPM 1.2 functionality, including exporting the TPM event log.  So it wasn't clear that leaving out the sysfs support was intentional or simply a question of someone needing to implement it. > > 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. Mimi > > A good reason would be something like needing to trigger a systemd > unit from udev. > > Jason