Re: [PATCH] SPI LPC information kernel module

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:57:11PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 09:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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