From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:58576 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726420AbeHJVTe (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 17:19:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1533926908.3143.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation From: James Bottomley To: Tadeusz Struk , Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: flihp@twobit.us, jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 11:48:28 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <153367365951.18015.11320230309813817454.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com> <153367366969.18015.14742040525393494830.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com> <20180810174320.GV4692@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 11:21 -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > and the feedback I got from Jason was: > > "I wonder if it is worth creating this when the first file is > opened.. Lots of systems have TPMs but few use the userspace.." > > so I changed this to allocate the WQ on first open. I think it makes > sense, but I leave it to you to decide. If the reason is to not create a wq unless it's needed, shouldn't the condition actually be first open with flag O_NONBLOCK? James