Re: ioctl API for vTPM driver

["Stefan Berger" <stefanb-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2891 bytes --]

Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> wrote on 03/06/2016 
07:28:16 AM:

> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> To: Stefan Berger <stefanb-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
> Cc: tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> Date: 03/06/2016 07:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] ioctl API for vTPM driver
> 
> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:11:03PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:05:37PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > Some follow-up question that have popped up while I've started to
> > > write a test program for this feature mainly about ioctl API.  It's
> > > better to be extremly cautious here because we will be stuck with 
this
> > > ioctl forever.
> > > 
> > > 1. Why the ioctl name is VTPM_NEW_DEV but the struct name is
> > >    vtpm_new_pair? It would be better if they both were either
> > >    VTPM_NEW_DEV and vtpm_new_dev or alternatively VTPM_NEW_PAIR
> > >    and vtpm_new_pair.

Renamed it to vtpm_new_dev.

> > > 2. Is 'pair' or 'tuple' a better term?
> > > 3. Where is the documentation for the ioctl? I don't think I can
> > >    merge this to my next branch before it exists.

I'll add some later today or tomorrow.

> > > 4. I have forgotten why the major and minor numbers were returned.
> > >    My guess is that they were returned so that a container could
> > >    replicate the device? This is one reason why documentation is
> > >    mandatory.

Yes, it's there so that inside a container a device with that major and 
minor number can be created and device cgroups be setup.

> > 
> > 5. Is there any particular reason why 'tpm_dev_num' couldn't simply be
> >    'dev_num'?

Renamed to 'tpm_num' Updated my git repo.

> 
> I think you should still send a patch set after documentation has been
> completed and we have addressed these items to the following mailing
> lists:
> 
> * linux-kernel
> * linux-api
> * linux-doc
> * tpmdd

The whole patchset as 'v5' ?

> 
> Now these patches have circled only in the tpmdd mailing list which
> is not sufficient. I just realized this recently that the relevant
> mailing lists were completely missing (while starting to write a
> test program).
> 
> For patches up to TPM_CHIP_FLAG_VIRTUAL you could downloaded patches
> from my repository before posting the patch set since they include
> also my reviewed/tested-by's.

Ok, will sync.

    Stefan

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> /Jarkko
> 
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> tpmdd-devel mailing list
> tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
> 



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4174 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 79 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
tpmdd-devel mailing list
tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel