From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:17882 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932999AbeF2Rnf (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:43:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 20:43:28 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Peter Huewe , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Winkler, Tomas" , Azhar Shaikh , Stefan Berger , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: require to compile as part of the kernel Message-ID: <20180629174328.GA4060@linux.intel.com> References: <20180629151005.10899-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180629153141.GE379@ziepe.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180629153141.GE379@ziepe.ca> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 > > --- > > 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