On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 04:20:51PM -0400, Daniel De Graaf wrote: > That's fine; it wasn't really advertised in the description, and was > mostly added in order to demonstrate the locality security label binding > in Xen's vtpm-stubdom.
Ok, lets take it out for now then? I'll send a patch. > >It looks like this driver was introduced in the 3.12 merge window, we > >could drop the attribute, and try to merge a core supported locality > >API in 3.13? What do you think? > > > >But, if you say it is needed, it is easy enough to adjust this patch > >series. > If it's replaced with an alternative, I don't think the sysfs attribute > will need to remain. I am not aware of any clients that currently use > this attribute. The sysfs attribute could remain as the common interface > for changing locality, unless you think an ioctl on /dev/tpm0 or > something else would be preferable (the attribute was just the simplest > way to implement locality switching at the time). Off the very top of my head: I suspect that a good API would be a sysfs attribute 'default_locality' and an IOCTL to change localities. The default_locality would only take effect when the /dev/tpmX is opened, so fiddling with sysfs doesn't break active users. The struct ops I've added would have a function to change localities, some of the generic TPM functions should be revised to have a locality argument. Some thought is needed to determine what locality in-kernel users should be using. I suspect userspace and kernel space should not be forced to the same locality. Should user space be restricted to a subset of localities? What use models do you see with the security label binding mechanism you have on the hypervisor side? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
