From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C685F1D0F61; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:19:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730495984; cv=none; b=blrGWZiDV812455Hjy04XwSLFE1/jEtGWYU5PSL2rI79ie/sLQ62oDHA09e+aLyrz5O+dT7sfoyegVzTBxfppGO8WZBB8mvtwbikRnyZPX43Fy+Zrt/omujDUFB6EoiBdKHqX2/j8SYSYCViQtHjGKZMZ2jfmDjooy6tkf0RVK8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730495984; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fJEg2VjMXer2Y0al47UWb2qt+VXk29+LnZoE+tlChVM=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=TkFezg/GSp57f2lqJBOV4ypHMjposAQkw+ehgXUBQkBM8q+o4ClL/FNTURvJ5wjlJBQOxyQGFKOjRvblAATxtaRNHEqEmQadDxJ1p8FzscQOu9rXg7svVr2XhK55Dcp9NRa3OspnjhFtafWH9MS+3cOMkkhA5QRzvGuJvZp5F40= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=nHYL0beI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="nHYL0beI" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9031C4CECD; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:19:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730495983; bh=fJEg2VjMXer2Y0al47UWb2qt+VXk29+LnZoE+tlChVM=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nHYL0beIEk+vI+DD7w/Us6zMyJvldIqAHUSHcrklNSvCq11LHVJ6CBt5xv78b/JJC dPgfCM0V6snWFNmONDbXmhzak1nJPTLPySPFRUP6u0ExWLG4v595JsxTxoCBMrdjFC MemL5Z6ImC8jJD4GJHp89n7ZT8Hlxi8POl1YslvSCwUkZcXMSg4Rv6kE/ZzPa3pG1C hh/T4YG/hSqq/sGxKd6WvIuzu+pTMu7CuG8uE9ou0AIh3M3TG0vQsvpSUDj273uU/N hPD62pWdslpiS1uhT+lzHqwad/pyPyc8nOEunPm6wT3zzTJD7lqpahjKEqBJu4hL8U v723ef+lxzjkA== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:19:38 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/20] x86: Trenchboot secure dynamic launch Linux kernel support From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Ross Philipson" , , , , , , , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: <20240913200517.3085794-1-ross.philipson@oracle.com> <87a5eivgku.ffs@tglx> In-Reply-To: On Fri Nov 1, 2024 at 11:13 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri Nov 1, 2024 at 10:34 PM EET, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 01 2024 at 12:28, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Fri Sep 13, 2024 at 11:04 PM EEST, Ross Philipson wrote: > > >> A quick note on terminology. The larger open source project itself i= s called > > >> TrenchBoot, which is hosted on Github (links below). The kernel feat= ure enabling > > >> the use of Dynamic Launch technology is referred to as "Secure Launc= h" within > > >> the kernel code. As such the prefixes sl_/SL_ or slaunch/SLAUNCH wil= l be seen > > >> in the code. The stub code discussed above is referred to as the SL = stub. > > > > > > 1. I don't see any tags in most of the patches so don't get the rush.= This > > > includes also patches for x86. Why I would care to review TPM patc= hes > > > when there is over a dozen unreviewed and untested patches before = it? > > > 2. TPM patches have been in circulation in and out of the patch set > > > for some time now with little or no improvement. > > > > > > Why the sudden buzz? I have not heard much about this since last earl= y > > > summer. Have to spend some time recalling what this is about anyway.= I > > > cannot trust that my tags make any sense before more reviewed/tested-= by > > > tags before the TPM patches. > > > > If I intend to merge the patches then I surely have looked at them > > deeply. I don't have to send a reviewed-by just to apply them > > afterwards. > > > > There was enough motion on these patches and this posting is in your > > inbox for 6 weeks now without any reaction from you. > > > > The TPM changes are very much independent from the x86 specific ones, s= o > > why do you want x86 review tags in order to look at the ones which are > > specific to your subsystem especially as some of them seem to address > > real short comings there independent of trenchboot. > > I think we can sort them out independently as long as we find a > conclusion how to address locality change. And to be fair: there was no reaction from anyone. It is mostly x86 patch set, meaning that I was waiting for some reaction first from that side. And I did respond to that when it came. IMHO: let's get a solution for that one problem and then it should be fine as far as I'm concerned. BR, Jarkko