From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH RFC v4 4/5] tpm: split out tpm-dev.c into tpm-dev.c and tpm-common-dev.c Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:28:23 -0800 Message-ID: <1485210503.2534.32.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20170122234438.12102-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20170122234438.12102-5-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20170123164754.GA29360@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170123164754.GA29360@obsidianresearch.com> Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: Jason Gunthorpe , Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: open list , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Mon, 2017-01-23 at 09:47 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:44:32AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > From: James Bottomley > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley > > > > I really think we should not use the ugly read/write interface for > any new things. The R/W interface is needed for backward compat, so we don't really have a choice (well, it could go in for long term deprecation, but I found in SCSI that "long term" == "never"). I think no-one objects to the ioctl interface ... it's just no-one feels strongly enough to build and test it. I'm sure if you send patches, Jarkko will include them. James > Still unconvinced we should add a new cdev at this point.. But seeing > seesion support certainl is encouraging..