From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: add support for partial reads
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 20:05:54 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180724020554.GL532@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee0f0ccf-f757-a7d4-bf55-316f81fb490b@intel.com>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:42:38PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 03:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 03:00:20PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> >> On 07/23/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> The proposed patch doesn't clear the data_pending if the entire buffer
> >>> is not consumed, so of course it is ABI breaking, that really isn't OK.
> >> The data_pending will be cleared by the timeout handler if the user doesn't
> >> read the response fully before the timeout expires. The is the same situation
> >> if the user would not read the response at all.
> > That causes write() to fail with EBUSY
> >
> > NAK from me on breaking the ABI like this
>
> What if we introduce this new behavior only for the non-blocking mode
> as James suggested? Or do you have some other suggestions?
I think you should do it entirely in userspace.
But something sensible linked to O_NONBLOCK could be OK.
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jgg@ziepe.ca (Jason Gunthorpe)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] tpm: add support for partial reads
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 20:05:54 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180724020554.GL532@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee0f0ccf-f757-a7d4-bf55-316f81fb490b@intel.com>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:42:38PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 03:08 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 03:00:20PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> >> On 07/23/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> The proposed patch doesn't clear the data_pending if the entire buffer
> >>> is not consumed, so of course it is ABI breaking, that really isn't OK.
> >> The data_pending will be cleared by the timeout handler if the user doesn't
> >> read the response fully before the timeout expires. The is the same situation
> >> if the user would not read the response at all.
> > That causes write() to fail with EBUSY
> >
> > NAK from me on breaking the ABI like this
>
> What if we introduce this new behavior only for the non-blocking mode
> as James suggested? Or do you have some other suggestions?
I think you should do it entirely in userspace.
But something sensible linked to O_NONBLOCK could be OK.
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-24 3:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-19 15:52 [PATCH] tpm: add support for partial reads Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 15:52 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 15:55 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 15:55 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 17:19 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 17:19 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 17:54 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 17:54 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 18:47 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 18:47 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 19:05 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 19:05 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 19:52 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 19:52 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 19:52 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 20:12 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 20:12 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 20:27 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 20:27 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 20:27 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-19 21:01 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 21:01 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-19 21:01 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 20:19 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-07-23 20:19 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-07-23 20:53 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 20:53 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 21:13 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-23 21:13 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-23 21:13 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-23 21:38 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 21:38 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 21:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-07-23 21:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-07-23 22:00 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 22:00 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 22:08 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-07-23 22:08 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-07-23 23:42 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-23 23:42 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-07-24 2:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2018-07-24 2:05 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-07-23 21:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-07-23 21:48 ` 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=20180724020554.GL532@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tadeusz.struk@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.