On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 07:16:35PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:

Current trusted keys framework is tightly coupled to use TPM device as
an underlying implementation which makes it difficult for implementations
like Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) etc. to provide trusted keys
support in case platform doesn't posses a TPM device.

So this patch tries to add generic trusted keys framework where underlying
implementations like TPM, TEE etc. could be easily plugged-in.

I would rephrase this a bit:

"Add a generic trusted keys framework where underlying implementations
can be easily plugged in. Create struct trusted_key_ops to achieve this,
which contains necessary functions of a backend."

I remember asking about this approach that what if there was just a
header for trusted key functions and a compile time decision, which C
file to include instead of ops struct. I don't remember if these was a
conclusion on this or not.

E.g. lets say you have a device with TEE and TPM, should you be able
to be use both at run-time? I might play along how this works now but
somehow, in the commit message preferably, it should be conclude why
one alternative is chosen over another.

/Jarkko

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel