Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758914AbYHOSu2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:50:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753879AbYHOSuQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:50:16 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]:34706 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751680AbYHOSuP (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:50:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface To: "Peter Dolding" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 Message-ID: From: Kenneth Goldman Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:50:01 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML604/01/M/IBM(Build V85_M1_05262008|May 26, 2008) at 08/15/2008 14:50:01 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 838 Lines: 20 "Peter Dolding" wrote on 08/15/2008 06:37:27 AM: > Remember even soldered on stuff can fail. How linux handles the > death of the TPM module needs to be covered. Is fault tolerance a requirement just for the TPM, or is it a general> Linux requirement? Has it always been there, or is it new? For example, does kernel software have to gracefully handle failures in the disk controller, processor, memory controller, BIOS flash memory, etc? I'd think it would be quite hard to code around motherboard failures in a commodity platform not designed for fault tolerance. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/