From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754047Ab2GZWEj (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:04:39 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:43054 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753045Ab2GZWEg (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:04:36 -0400 Message-ID: <5011BD8C.4010301@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:58:36 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kent Yoder CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, m.selhorst@sirrix.com, safford@us.ibm.com, Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hw_random: add support for the TPM chip as a hardware RNG source References: <1339094567.21398.2.camel@key-ThinkPad-W510> <1339094862.21398.6.camel@key-ThinkPad-W510> In-Reply-To: <1339094862.21398.6.camel@key-ThinkPad-W510> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/07/2012 11:47 AM, Kent Yoder wrote: > This driver will make use of any available TPM chip on the system as a > hwrng source. > > Signed-off-by: Kent Yoder > --- > drivers/char/hw_random/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++ > drivers/char/hw_random/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/char/hw_random/tpm-rng.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/char/hw_random/tpm-rng.c > So I just noticed this patch being pushed. /dev/hw_random is used by rngd, which already has support for the TPM directly. However, the TPM support in rngd conflict with tcsd (from TrouSerS). Does this driver solve the coexistence problem? If so, this is a Very Good Thing and should be accepted (and the TPM support in rngd deprecated/removed.) If it does *not* solve the coexistence problem, then it just prevents a user space solution and the patch really should be rejected. It would be great to get that clarified as soon as possible. Thanks, -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.