Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102b:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id x11csp3658275ybt; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:16:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzWoRTMuOeVy0kZvKjjNdR2lJuAaif+ho59as6zg0HolgR2BTvSH5dYL4pDHNtkD+vtA5wg X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5418:: with SMTP id q24mr18429170ejo.266.1593530195206; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:16:35 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1593530195; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=NYeXjDgswk8OUIYgRV+etEEydri2BVWk96YfOLwkum6o4ivWD2dihZgCo3NJiie/MP W0Y4XClpFi+eMxTQOczJEFid/dVVa8NjUQ3Zdn9sbFo0XCdtoaAo/+C9lqunjtLkHuYM hKYS8Pi4fXJ8oe6IRudPEPk8+2x3wzidGlnDI/weDM7z+GLZsmtLnhhoy+qAd6xSUjD2 7aXLkDCW3anNysfB9rVy34cds09q/hWMeMpVeY9FopzvjKxULdXAGLTJTeAiqBY1eA46 8IN79ygx3O/hlatMFUG2hcYVjRxQdsONjQSYSHs+g+qSpN5goJEVIvuNPObzGTQVjYiN rXPA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=uEdokmSqfdtojO7iBlYwxoOKD3m3LrBqpGjKa3Cwx4A=; b=Fy5CJxcPJ7WAJzSDeZgXDSWVvxR6RRrf3k7UJJOVPFZYAAnA1vJ642HY0Hq/ZYAqQH tS8Iq98qe48vUWbdsiniJ6/xEzHOGTzYYVmhTCzkYR4TyJ3CS3q8SLBVDHSbcrDUvMfN f/Z+QEPK+IJbvz/SQHASXrd6RaCeV+8IijuUCAiResk6c9Syv6DqZ+u5yGAPGLz5eXlC tYFOCoupBRk16i0NZpWuq4pS9f3gbtsvo9+q8QTsl+2eACCqVFtzdQBo0nAeU6fFZm0o Ja9wOPtF4irDY/Pja0HP5AtUGKCQSTVBWw3xEvPaK1VyQNJRum7piyak048UF2r2poFv DrXQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=MxQ6Cjyz; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id nk2si1964821ejb.695.2020.06.30.08.16.11; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=default header.b=MxQ6Cjyz; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389254AbgF3PPF (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:15:05 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:51116 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729051AbgF3PPF (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:15:05 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92F3A20720; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:15:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1593530105; bh=cijGjigQwhvCARTByc8A38JipYEf0DJx/FmrGjxGEcQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MxQ6CjyzDekpwaIVA6erERfevDWf1yalbduUhyHaduRgt6RZnlgDktxYz2j+yR5H7 MWZT3fxjoDDPLSTT7FkIrrl7MoiXGRpVQxZU+uJipO0H1gjsL+jdaHWquGXc+a0GTg 9i1P1svPpQvHoBhCeo4vnTvF8isXuC55JA38XHRQ= Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:14:52 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Richard Hughes Cc: Daniel Gutson , Derek Kiernan , Arnd Bergmann , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , linux-kernel , Alex Bazhaniuk Subject: Re: [PATCH] SPI LPC information kernel module Message-ID: <20200630151452.GA1780940@kroah.com> References: <20200629225932.5036-1-daniel.gutson@eclypsium.com> <20200630085641.GD637809@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:57:11PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 09:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > Again, which makes it seem like securityfs is not the thing for this, as > > it describes the hardware, not a security model which is what securityfs > > has been for in the past, right? > > It describes the hardware platform. From a fwupd perspective I don't > mind if the BC attributes are read from securityfs, sysfs or even read > from an offset in a file from /proc... I guess sysfs makes sense if > securityfs is defined for things like the LSM or lockdown status, > although I also thought sysfs was for devices *in* the platform, not > the platform itself. Have you looked at /sys/devices/system/ in a while? :) > I guess exposing the platform registers in sysfs > is no more weird than exposing things like the mei device and rfkill. It is attributes that describe the hardware the system is running on, which is what sysfs is for. thanks, greg k-h