From: jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com (Jason Gunthorpe)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:11:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170317171116.GA29996@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878to3x2h2.fsf@redhat.com>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > Changing the return value to -EBUSY was a stupid mistake from my side.
> >
> > I'll try revise this a bit in a way that the API will allow positive
> > value for stating that the given locality has been already taking.
>
> Is there a big performance hit with requesting and releasing locality?
> If instead it just released it when release_locality is called I think
> the changes are pretty minor.
If you can measure please let us know :)
This is all very old it may not actually make any sense..
.. and as I said earlier if we want to 'cache' the locality for
performance then the core code should do it.
I kinda thought the point of releasing the locality was to allow other
platform things to access the TPM, so I'm confused why TIS wouldn't
always release it as well..
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
To: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen-X3B1VOXEql0@public.gmane.org>,
open list <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org,
gang.wei-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:11:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170317171116.GA29996@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878to3x2h2.fsf-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > Changing the return value to -EBUSY was a stupid mistake from my side.
> >
> > I'll try revise this a bit in a way that the API will allow positive
> > value for stating that the given locality has been already taking.
>
> Is there a big performance hit with requesting and releasing locality?
> If instead it just released it when release_locality is called I think
> the changes are pretty minor.
If you can measure please let us know :)
This is all very old it may not actually make any sense..
.. and as I said earlier if we want to 'cache' the locality for
performance then the core code should do it.
I kinda thought the point of releasing the locality was to allow other
platform things to access the TPM, so I'm confused why TIS wouldn't
always release it as well..
Jason
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@iki.fi>,
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, gang.wei@intel.com,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:11:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170317171116.GA29996@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <878to3x2h2.fsf@redhat.com>
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:00:41AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > Changing the return value to -EBUSY was a stupid mistake from my side.
> >
> > I'll try revise this a bit in a way that the API will allow positive
> > value for stating that the given locality has been already taking.
>
> Is there a big performance hit with requesting and releasing locality?
> If instead it just released it when release_locality is called I think
> the changes are pretty minor.
If you can measure please let us know :)
This is all very old it may not actually make any sense..
.. and as I said earlier if we want to 'cache' the locality for
performance then the core code should do it.
I kinda thought the point of releasing the locality was to allow other
platform things to access the TPM, so I'm confused why TIS wouldn't
always release it as well..
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-17 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-15 5:57 [PATCH v3] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-15 5:57 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-15 5:57 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-16 2:38 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2017-03-16 2:38 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2017-03-16 3:27 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2017-03-16 3:27 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2017-03-16 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-16 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-17 17:00 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2017-03-17 17:00 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2017-03-17 17:00 ` Jerry Snitselaar
2017-03-17 17:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2017-03-17 17:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-03-17 17:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-03-17 20:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-17 20:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-17 20:37 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-17 20:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-17 20:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-03-17 20:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170317171116.GA29996@obsidianresearch.com \
--to=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.