All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
	Azhar Shaikh <azhar.shaikh@intel.com>,
	Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: require to compile as part of the kernel
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:43:28 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180629174328.GA4060@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180629153141.GE379@ziepe.ca>

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:10:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Do not allow to compile TPM core as a module. TPM defines a root of
> > trust for integrity and keyring subsystems and should be always
> > available and not be loaded from the user space. There is no a
> > reasonable use case for a loadable module existing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig | 2 +-
> >  include/linux/tpm.h      | 3 +--
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> This doesn't really make sense..
> 
> The kconfig method is that if IMA requires TPM it should declare so
> and TPM will become non-modular because IMA is non-modular.
> 
> There are lots of legitimate use cases for TPM that don't involve IMA
> or keyring.

In what context would it make sense to have TPM core as a module? I
forgot to add RFC tag this patch. Did not meant to push it to
mainline but more to rise up the discussion.

/Jarkko

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (Jarkko Sakkinen)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] tpm: require to compile as part of the kernel
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:43:28 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180629174328.GA4060@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180629153141.GE379@ziepe.ca>

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 06:10:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Do not allow to compile TPM core as a module. TPM defines a root of
> > trust for integrity and keyring subsystems and should be always
> > available and not be loaded from the user space. There is no a
> > reasonable use case for a loadable module existing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/tpm/Kconfig | 2 +-
> >  include/linux/tpm.h      | 3 +--
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> This doesn't really make sense..
> 
> The kconfig method is that if IMA requires TPM it should declare so
> and TPM will become non-modular because IMA is non-modular.
> 
> There are lots of legitimate use cases for TPM that don't involve IMA
> or keyring.

In what context would it make sense to have TPM core as a module? I
forgot to add RFC tag this patch. Did not meant to push it to
mainline but more to rise up the discussion.

/Jarkko
--
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

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-29 17:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-29 15:10 [PATCH] tpm: require to compile as part of the kernel Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-06-29 15:10 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-06-29 15:31 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-06-29 15:31   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-06-29 17:43   ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2018-06-29 17:43     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-06-29 18:11     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-06-29 18:11       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-06-29 17:47   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-06-29 17:47     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-06-29 18:09     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-06-29 18:09       ` Jason Gunthorpe

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=20180629174328.GA4060@linux.intel.com \
    --to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=azhar.shaikh@intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
    --cc=stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=tomas.winkler@intel.com \
    /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.