From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: Move Linux RNG connection to hwrng
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 09:29:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20171109162947.GJ7063@ziepe.ca>
References: <20171031200503.GC18578@ziepe.ca>
 <20171105110506.usxmuzrvcjvxahr6@linux.intel.com>
 <20171106022704.GD26011@ziepe.ca>
 <CANc+2y6dx_2zOzFA5aFs7RpEV8aNqxpDghmx+q_+XyendYJoew@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171107160404.GG21466@ziepe.ca>
 <CANc+2y4GFaAryTN0vdBqWi=tqGdc6AMZ5fLnyFg-Jsrv4g-p5g@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE (IMA)"
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
        <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
        Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
        David Safford <safford@us.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
To: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANc+2y4GFaAryTN0vdBqWi=tqGdc6AMZ5fLnyFg-Jsrv4g-p5g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:49:33PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> On 7 November 2017 at 21:34, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> >
> >> I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using
> >> struct tpm_chip instead of chip number and this patch.
> >
> > yes
> >
> >> I won't be able to test if struct tpm_chip usage as I don't have
> >> multiple tpm hw in one machine. In case of tpm rng changes I can test
> >> only the lifecycle of tpm rng device. Is that enough? I feel my test
> >> will be limited. Please provide your thoughts on this.
> >
> > That is certainly better than no testing.
> 
> The struct tpm_chip patch partially applied on linux next. I had to
> manually change the code. In qemu tpm rng device did not show up on
> loading tpm module. My laptop has tpm hw but Linux next did not work
> properly in that. All my console were getting spammed with some USB
> log message and I could not do anything. X did not start either. I
> could not debug the issue as the logs were printing infinitely. Will
> get little more time this weekend. Will do a proper test and provide
> you the result.

Test against 4.15-rc, here are the two patches

https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/tree/tpm

Pull from here and merge the latest rc and you will probably have a
bootable system.

Jason