From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:42320 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727397AbeIEWDg (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 18:03:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 20:32:23 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Martin Galvan Cc: jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: caps file showing wrong TCG version? Message-ID: <20180905173223.GC11368@linux.intel.com> References: <20180904213304.GD350@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:55:45PM -0300, Martin Galvan wrote: > El mar., 4 sept. 2018 a las 18:33, Jason Gunthorpe () escribio: > > Recursive sounds bad.. what are you seeing? > > At least on my system, /sys/class/tpm/tpm0/device has a 'tpm' dir > which seems to replicate the tpm0/device struct endlessly. Digging a > bit deeper I see: > > $ ls -l /sys/class/tpm/tpm0/device > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Sep 4 12:15 /sys/class/tpm/tpm0/device -> > ../../../00:09 > > The 00:09 dir in turn refers to ls /sys/devices/pnp0/00:09. > > On an unrelated note: I was recently told that > /sys/class/tpm/tpm0/caps doesn't exist for TPM 2.0. This is > inconvenient, since the manufacturer and version info exposed through > that file can be used to detect CVE-2017-15361. Is there an equivalent > file for TPM 2.0? Those files do not make sense because you can get the same information by talking to /dev/tpm0. /Jarkko