From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752884Ab2GZW2z (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:28:55 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:43230 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752547Ab2GZW2r (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:28:47 -0400 Message-ID: <5011C47E.1090503@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:28:14 -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> <5011BD8C.4010301@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <5011BD8C.4010301@zytor.com> 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 07/26/2012 02:58 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. > To answer my own question: this *does* seem to resolve the coexistence problem. However, please see the type violation/memory overwrite bug I posted about in my other mail. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.