[PATCH 2.6.15+]: Trusted Platform depends on Security models

[PATCH 2.6.15+]: Trusted Platform depends on Security models

[Rui Saraiva]

It seems that "TPM Hardware Support" (CONFIG_TCG_TPM) depends on
"Enable different security models" (CONFIG_SECURITY). Without this last
option, I get:

$ make modules_install
. . .
if [ -r System.map -a -x /sbin/depmod ]; then /sbin/depmod -ae -F System.map 2.6.16-rc1; fi
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-rc1/kernel/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_bios.ko needs unknown symbol securityfs_create_dir
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-rc1/kernel/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_bios.ko needs unknown symbol securityfs_remove
WARNING: /lib/modules/2.6.16-rc1/kernel/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_bios.ko needs unknown symbol securityfs_create_file
$

Regards,

Signed-off-by: Rui Saraiva <rmps@mail.pt>

---

--- linux-2.6.16-rc1/drivers/char/Kconfig	2006-01-17 13:36:14.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc1-rmps/drivers/char/Kconfig	2006-01-17 13:36:43.000000000 +0000
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ menu "TPM devices"

  config TCG_TPM
  	tristate "TPM Hardware Support"
-	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
+	depends on EXPERIMENTAL && SECURITY
  	---help---
  	  If you have a TPM security chip in your system, which
  	  implements the Trusted Computing Group's specification,

Re: [PATCH][2.6.16-rc1] TPM: tpm_bios needs securityfs (CONFIG_SECURITY)

[Jerome Pinot]

Hi,
 
 >It seems that "TPM Hardware Support" (CONFIG_TCG_TPM) depends on
 >"Enable different security models" (CONFIG_SECURITY).
 
 This does the trick but your patch formatting is broken. This one
 applies cleanly against 2.6.16-rc1.
 
 from: Rui Saraiva
 
 tpm_bios (CONFIG_TCG_TPM) depends on securityfs (CONFIG_SECURITY).
 
 Signed-off-by: Rui Saraiva <rmps@mail.pt>
 Signed-off-by: Jerome Pinot <ngc891@gmail.com>
 
 ---
 diff -Naur a/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig b/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig
 --- a/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig	2006-01-17 16:12:37.000000000 +0000
 +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig	2006-01-17 16:13:05.000000000 +0000
 @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
  
  config TCG_TPM
  	tristate "TPM Hardware Support"
 -	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
 +	depends on EXPERIMENTAL && SECURITY
  	---help---
  	  If you have a TPM security chip in your system, which
  	  implements the Trusted Computing Group's specification,

Re: [PATCH][2.6.16-rc1] TPM: tpm_bios needs securityfs (CONFIG_SECURITY)

[Kylene Jo Hall]

Ack'ed-by: Kylene Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com>

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 02:00 +0900, Jerome Pinot wrote:
> Hi,
>  
>  >It seems that "TPM Hardware Support" (CONFIG_TCG_TPM) depends on
>  >"Enable different security models" (CONFIG_SECURITY).
>  
>  This does the trick but your patch formatting is broken. This one
>  applies cleanly against 2.6.16-rc1.
>  
>  from: Rui Saraiva
>  
>  tpm_bios (CONFIG_TCG_TPM) depends on securityfs (CONFIG_SECURITY).
>  
>  Signed-off-by: Rui Saraiva <rmps@mail.pt>
>  Signed-off-by: Jerome Pinot <ngc891@gmail.com>
>  
>  ---
>  diff -Naur a/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig b/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig
>  --- a/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig	2006-01-17 16:12:37.000000000 +0000
>  +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig	2006-01-17 16:13:05.000000000 +0000
>  @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
>   
>   config TCG_TPM
>   	tristate "TPM Hardware Support"
>  -	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
>  +	depends on EXPERIMENTAL && SECURITY
>   	---help---
>   	  If you have a TPM security chip in your system, which
>   	  implements the Trusted Computing Group's specification,
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH][2.6.16-rc1] TPM: tpm_bios needs securityfs (CONFIG_SECURITY)

[Andrew Morton]

Kylene Jo Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Ack'ed-by: Kylene Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com>
> 
> On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 02:00 +0900, Jerome Pinot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >  
> >  >It seems that "TPM Hardware Support" (CONFIG_TCG_TPM) depends on
> >  >"Enable different security models" (CONFIG_SECURITY).
> >  
> >  This does the trick but your patch formatting is broken. This one
> >  applies cleanly against 2.6.16-rc1.
> >  
> >  from: Rui Saraiva
> >  
> >  tpm_bios (CONFIG_TCG_TPM) depends on securityfs (CONFIG_SECURITY).
> >  
> >  Signed-off-by: Rui Saraiva <rmps@mail.pt>
> >  Signed-off-by: Jerome Pinot <ngc891@gmail.com>

No, this patch shouldn't be needed once we have the suitable security stubs
in place.

See
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.16-rc1/2.6.16-rc1-mm2/broken-out/tpm_bios-needs-more-securityfs_-functions.patch
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.16-rc1/2.6.16-rc1-mm2/broken-out/tpm_bios-securityfs-error-checking-fix.patch