From: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
Tadeusz Struk <tstruk@gmail.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, philip.b.tricca@intel.com, "Dock,
Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:20:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <279e1857-dbed-808d-0481-ced43f7fa64b@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1529558767.3118.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
On 06/20/2018 10:26 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> Yes, it does polling:
>> http://docs.libuv.org/en/v1.x/design.html#the-i-o-loop
> But that's for networking. You'll be talking to the TPM RM over the
> file descriptor so that follows the thread pool model in
>
> http://docs.libuv.org/en/v1.x/design.html#file-i-o
>
> This precisely describes the current file descriptor abstraction we'd
> use for the TPM.
That is for the file IO that doesn't support non-blocking, because there
is no need for it as the operations are "fast".
Operations on the TPM would fall under the io loop model.
>
>> Regardless of how it actually might be used, I'm happy that we agree
>> on that this *is* the right thing to do.
> I didn't say that. I think using a single worker thread queue is the
> correct abstraction for the TPM. If there's a legacy use case for
> poll(), I don't see why not since the code seems to be fairly small and
> self contained, but I don't really see it as correct or necessary to do
> it that way.
This discussion starts to go around the circle. You don't agree, but you
also don't disagree? Is this what you are saying?
Thanks,
--
Tadeusz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-21 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-12 17:58 [PATCH v3 0/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation Tadeusz Struk
2018-06-12 17:58 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: add ptr to the tpm_space struct to file_priv Tadeusz Struk
2018-06-12 17:58 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation Tadeusz Struk
2018-06-13 17:55 ` J Freyensee
2018-06-13 18:05 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-06-19 13:10 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] " Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-06-20 0:45 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-06-20 23:59 ` James Bottomley
2018-06-21 1:24 ` Tadeusz Struk
2018-06-21 5:26 ` James Bottomley
2018-06-21 16:20 ` Tadeusz Struk [this message]
2018-06-21 17:17 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-06-21 17:36 ` Tadeusz Struk
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=279e1857-dbed-808d-0481-ced43f7fa64b@intel.com \
--to=tadeusz.struk@intel.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=deneen.t.dock@intel.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=philip.b.tricca@intel.com \
--cc=tstruk@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox