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:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Tadeusz Struk <tstruk@gmail.com>,
        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,
        "Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@intel.com>
References: <152882630662.30206.8805136953394285180.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <20180619131046.GC5609@linux.intel.com>
 <e402d3d0-d9de-35a9-d434-d472d8f68e62@intel.com>
 <1529539176.4163.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <0e46c2e9-af2b-550f-2b3d-98cbc1840bc1@gmail.com>
 <1529558767.3118.1.camel@HansenPartnership.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: <279e1857-dbed-808d-0481-ced43f7fa64b@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:20:38 -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: <1529558767.3118.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/20/2018 10:26 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> Yes, it does polling:
>> http://docs.libuv.org/en/v1.x/design.html#the-i-o-loop
> But that's for networking.  You'll be talking to the TPM RM over the
> file descriptor so that follows the thread pool model in
> 
> http://docs.libuv.org/en/v1.x/design.html#file-i-o
> 
> This precisely describes the current file descriptor abstraction we'd
> use for the TPM.

That is for the file IO that doesn't support non-blocking, because there
is no need for it as the operations are "fast".
Operations on the TPM would fall under the io loop model.

> 
>> Regardless of how it actually might be used, I'm happy that we agree
>> on that this *is* the right thing to do.
> I didn't say that.  I think using a single worker thread queue is the
> correct abstraction for the TPM.  If there's a legacy use case for
> poll(), I don't see why not since the code seems to be fairly small and
> self contained, but I don't really see it as correct or necessary to do
> it that way.

This discussion starts to go around the circle. You don't agree, but you
also don't disagree? Is this what you are saying?
Thanks,
-- 
Tadeusz