diff for duplicates of <1592571711.17802.21.camel@linux.ibm.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index cfb69a7..cbe4bcc 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -25,18 +25,18 @@ On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 12:07 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > > > As long as we're dealing with the "boot_aggregate", Maurizio just > > posted a kernel patch for including PCR 8 & 9 in the boot_aggregate. -> > The existing IMA LTP "boot_aggregate" test is going to need to +> > ?The existing IMA LTP "boot_aggregate" test is going to need to > > support this change. > I'm not sure if I did something wrong, but it looks to me that 'evmctl > ima_boot_aggregate' does not provide backward compatibility with TPM 1.2. > Or am I wrong? Calculating the "boot_aggregate" - "evmctl ima_boot_aggregate" - for -TPM 1.2 should work. Reading the code, it looks like it assumes that -the crypto library supports SHA1 and SHA256. That assumption needs to +TPM 1.2 should work. ?Reading the code, it looks like it assumes that +the crypto library supports SHA1 and SHA256. ?That assumption needs to be addressed. -The tests/boot_aggregate.test logs are TPM 2.0. The test is failing -on systems with a TPM 1.2. I'm working on a fix for this. +The tests/boot_aggregate.test logs are TPM 2.0. ?The test is failing +on systems with a TPM 1.2. ?I'm working on a fix for this. Mimi diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index f1d0045..281362b 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -7,17 +7,9 @@ "ref\01592252491.11061.181.camel@linux.ibm.com\0" "ref\020200619100737.GB18704@dell5510\0" "From\0Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>\0" - "Subject\0Re: [LTP v2 1/1] ima_tpm.sh: Fix for calculating boot aggregate\0" + "Subject\0[LTP] [LTP v2 1/1] ima_tpm.sh: Fix for calculating boot aggregate\0" "Date\0Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:01:51 -0400\0" - "To\0Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>\0" - "Cc\0Bruno Meneguele <bmeneg@redhat.com>" - ltp@lists.linux.it - Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - Petr Cervinka <pcervinka@suse.com> - Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> - linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org - Vitaly Chikunov <vt@altlinux.org> - " Maurizio Drocco <maurizio.drocco@ibm.com>\0" + "To\0ltp@lists.linux.it\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Fri, 2020-06-19 at 12:07 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote:\n" @@ -47,20 +39,20 @@ "> \n" "> > As long as we're dealing with the \"boot_aggregate\", Maurizio just\n" "> > posted a kernel patch for including PCR 8 & 9 in the boot_aggregate.\n" - "> > \302\240The existing IMA LTP \"boot_aggregate\" test is going to need to\n" + "> > ?The existing IMA LTP \"boot_aggregate\" test is going to need to\n" "> > support this change.\n" "> I'm not sure if I did something wrong, but it looks to me that 'evmctl\n" "> ima_boot_aggregate' does not provide backward compatibility with TPM 1.2.\n" "> Or am I wrong?\n" "\n" "Calculating the \"boot_aggregate\" - \"evmctl ima_boot_aggregate\" - for\n" - "TPM 1.2 should work. \302\240Reading the code, it looks like it assumes that\n" - "the crypto library supports SHA1 and SHA256. \302\240That assumption needs to\n" + "TPM 1.2 should work. ?Reading the code, it looks like it assumes that\n" + "the crypto library supports SHA1 and SHA256. ?That assumption needs to\n" "be addressed.\n" "\n" - "The tests/boot_aggregate.test logs are TPM 2.0. \302\240The test is failing\n" - "on systems with a TPM 1.2. \302\240I'm working on a fix for this.\n" + "The tests/boot_aggregate.test logs are TPM 2.0. ?The test is failing\n" + "on systems with a TPM 1.2. ?I'm working on a fix for this.\n" "\n" Mimi -604d6f6d01be6ef42b923ae1282d80f0e775b3b3d12f2b4f305267305bcf0798 +7a42066833e3f87063663974a3d291fd0c7c9b7dc8e4c2ed31c3c757a4b070fc
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.