Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation
To:     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,
        James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
        "Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@intel.com>
References: <152882630662.30206.8805136953394285180.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <20180619131046.GC5609@linux.intel.com>
From:   Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=tadeusz.struk@intel.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsDiBEiLICMRBADteQacQxypsuFvAw6IwYzbD8pgQi+kLYBcqfGgVAUN/cO+sLl6u1lVdaDB
 fhAArdbV9lpoqcWnmhQFTb4A+W569EpydBr6nuatWkEB+fmmx8YoUtuZfXt7v+1l1rc09kaW
 LY+TkwQkvFCeuvdasgmBLnmRWymEGWi1E12hUgTw/wCgtK24geC7XkiuANMv0gpr+raOgQMD
 /2yJZ0SeXQApWyTRaeIYN8GgYHZTWuBp/ofN+viEkhrDxahcaGPP5B/Nv6VS1+M0e5m8OzHj
 qPUbgfyOeJcslC5aoZdqqqzVWVLaA/+Jy+O+6T3k3R/IryVVATldBlwnGFDhET0mKQsd15zt
 cIdQBBbfSFR5VlugZuWV5q442IpPA/4g7nen9FFPxh45Te8D54hAsOCywjm6xUE0UJGYHeJ/
 MXCPtuXfVCbYcOxZVH7kUS2Vtk5d3bF40IE2WnVq1ZScNANF4ZjikxYhYGfNWX3HXak1gSoj
 UrY87rMSjPIAry4L0BoIx2qgL/k4iV/3QcXL4t5wosU0iw++suf1zGGcKM0gVGFkZXVzeiBT
 dHJ1ayA8dHN0cnVrQGdtYWlsLmNvbT7CYwQTEQIAIwIbAwYLCQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4B
 AheABQJQTjJTAhkBAAoJEDFswfskq9xyqvcAoI2nsaUCX8ZGbu+Jhq+++qlBFJ2rAJ983RoO
 R2ofHhn3g3Qi4K34tw0l087BTQRauzUlARAAqkWRL/InEPnoGMg/gw/CRaDBaIBgMsvIcghI
 7xevIzpleXt6jKHghSBooH+zaT7qi4u2gkgPn4odsER3Rm94XgrZJgoqls6EpKMWpJNGP4HT
 eYgykhfsZOLX8ijUbjTM/Sm/dZVo6aYoBL2+ciJwyl+Zt3Mp6un3/GWu6cA9005V50pRqO7j
 PTlVCHi2bedcEEf5DDsYJv/3Oz8/4LpSf6BL6BltjeZVa2y03dTMmD031JTH+OuyJm1yh72Z
 HWxhlYNXOv6uFJJVr+paQjrAsBVIYKhK24bD+uGJxLm8AN9i7/Si+2YeSsXvKUhk9mIoFBnU
 VFo63cziRTcpRu/kXgDAbujwN88qytEcvhEZHS6B9vdws+lhTpolEjkLCkz0Y59z4Fs9srKy
 QkRN+wtdiLgrwyDW3ryAKxcDmOumGWebDxpaOI/pBhrlS93HmDlvj7JmgTUU4a/NhwI3dXh5
 pn8FZzZyVXe3Kc3bu5T3UAC7uztinsAvCJQS6jGZWrXmXkqYkaLXQOw61eInWjr01zE/zDbE
 mdJPM0+va/gtZx9TtGxr4PpjbqswqCiubLDZXZHh5uqArPv/i+E8aXIsNSTN6Rrqs1j9YgDN
 ALksibv6+tXH3sOlCUgjuZgJH3+s/mnaAtiV2rZ/WlH15d6nd0uiDSZrKhlR+g4NHMh1ztEA
 EQEAAcJPBBgRAgAPBQJauzUlAhsMBQkJZgGAAAoJEDFswfskq9xyfv8AoI8aPrJCoM0h5WOP
 kKxMmPEPHzUNAJ9jBBYXhX1CWg+IhI7i/fLlI0vwCA==
Message-ID: <e402d3d0-d9de-35a9-d434-d472d8f68e62@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:45:35 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180619131046.GC5609@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/19/2018 06:10 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:58:26AM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
>> The TCG SAPI specification [1] defines a set of functions, which allows
>> applications to use the TPM device in either blocking or non-blocking fashion.
>> Each command defined by the specification has a corresponding
>> Tss2_Sys_<COMMAND>_Prepare() and Tss2_Sys_<COMMAND>_Complete() call, which
>> together with Tss2_Sys_ExecuteAsync() is designed to allow asynchronous
>> mode of operation. Currently the TPM driver supports only blocking calls,
>> which doesn't allow asynchronous IO operations.
>> This patch changes it and adds support for nonblocking write and a new poll
>> function to enable applications, which want to take advantage of this feature.
>> The new functionality can be tested using standard TPM tools implemented
>> in [2], together with modified TCTI from [3].
>>
>> [1] https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/wp-content/uploads/TSS_SAPI_Version-1.1_Revision-22_review_030918.pdf
>> [2] https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-tools
>> [3] https://github.com/tstruk/tpm2-tss/tree/async
> 
> For me the value is still a bit questionable. The benchmark looks a bit
> flakky to give much figures how this would work with real world workloads.
> 
> I read James response and I also have to question why not just a worker
> thread in user space? TPM does only one command at a time anyways.
> 
> Cannot take this in before I know that user space will (1) adapt to
> this and (2) gain value compared to a worker thread.
> 
Hi Jarkko,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.
There are applications/frameworks where a worker thread is not an option.
Take for example the IoT use-cases and frameworks like IoT.js, or "Node.js for IoT".
They are all single threaded, event-driven frameworks, using non-blocking I/O as the base of their processing model.
Similarly embedded applications, which are basically just a single threaded event loop, quite often don't use threads because of resources constrains.

If your concern is that user space will not adopt to this, I can say that TSS library [1] is currently blocked on this feature, and we can not enable some of the use-cases mentioned above because of this.

Thanks,
Tadeusz

[1] https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-tss