From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 09:22:15 -0400 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] ima: skip verifying TPM 2.0 PCR values In-Reply-To: <20191025125202.GA1966@mail.hallyn.com> References: <1558041162.3971.2.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190517150456.GA11796@dell5510> <20191024121848.GA5908@dell5510> <20191024172023.GA7948@linux.intel.com> <20191024213842.c6cl4tlnsi56pgcy@cantor> <1571964420.5173.12.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20191025021159.dt7ifgnebnke6ca7@cantor> <20191025085617.GA13329@x230> <20191025125202.GA1966@mail.hallyn.com> Message-ID: <1572009735.4532.17.camel@linux.ibm.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 07:52 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:56:17AM +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > /sys/kernel/security/tpmX/major_version (on fedora and rhel at > least, is it elsewhere on other distros?) This patch doesn't define a securityfs file.??It must be a soft link to the actual file. > > > versus > > > > > /sys/class/tpm/tpmX/major_version This is a softlink to the TPM device (eg. /sys/devices/xxxx/.../tpm/tpm0). > > > > Is it more HW related (/sys/class/tpm/tpmX) or LSM related > > (/sys/kernel/security/tpmX)? > > I guess /sys/kernel/security/tpmX might be better. > > This is purely about whether the phsyical TPM chip is 1.2 or 2., > right? /sys/class/tpm/tpmX is where I would expect to find that. > > > Thanks for implementing this, I'll try to test it soon. > > Yes, it's been a pain point, and someone (..., I) should have done this years > ago - thanks! +1