Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support, for TPM 2.0 firmware event log

[Nayna <nayna-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

On 01/31/2017 11:16 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:08:42PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Ken Goldman" <kgold-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org
>>> <mailto:kgold-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>>
>>> Date: 26-Jan-2017 2:53 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs
>>> support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log
>>> To: <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>>> <mailto:linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>>,
>>> <linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
>>> <mailto:linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>>,
>>> <tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
>>> <mailto:tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org>>
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>>      You do not need to send a new patch set version as long as this
>>>      one gets peer tested. And it needs to be tested without hacks
>>>      like plumbing TCPA with TPM 2.0 in QEMU. OF code paths needs to
>>>      be peer tested to be more specific.
>>>
>>>      For me the code itself looks good but I simply cannot take it in
>>>      in the current situation.
>>>
>>>      /Jarkko
>>>
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Kenneth Goldman <kgold-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org
>>> <mailto:kgold-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>>
>>>
>>> I validated a firmware event log taken from a Power 8 against PCR 0-7
>>> values for the SHA-1 and SHA-256 banks from a Nuvoton TPM 2.0 chip on
>>> that same platform.
>>>
>>
>> Thank You Ken.
>>
>> Jarkko, I hope now these patches can be accepted for 4.11.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>>     - Nayna
>
> I already sent my pull request to 4.11 and even today I found something
> fishy. You declared a function local array by using a variable in "tpm:
> enhance TPM 2.0 PCR extend to support multiple banks" (max_active_banks
> or something). And the event log patches have just passed the review.

Yes. I have checked using clang and it has passed the clang.. and I also 
verified there were no complains during build.

What type of problem do you see ?

Also, to understand, this is related to multi-bank patchset. I mean how 
does it affect for event log patchset ?

Thanks & Regards,
    - Nayna

>
> I've applied them to my tree but I'll only include bug fixes for 4.11
> pull requests. You'll have to wait till' 4.12.
>
> /Jarkko
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot