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 A71FD1E2848; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:13:44 +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=1730495624; cv=none; b=NTww/E0HKkoMpljm3nu7mTDJPjc5eXNg6Mt+yuEWDUC9fjiicfvslB7tLU1ekFhWzo9erUUF79bs5w38b5Vss+9nEx0uSnsLAoJzf2KP9SJk1BNOivwBF1UgAYhk7giZkaNfs72N35wmt0aOyKOlCdC3xmZp0YZyqb1v919M5s8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730495624; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vrlQ5nkW/wzdW59TsobYC/cGECVvY5bM8O3JACd5vR8=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=QsU6pnyVpfJ0NFQT2KC7xBcjQboURj/mp1a57eU3ijperv/Cg3Xi5fQ7kJP9QQm3RupmUcPnR0eRiCzi0Kgkhv2Mr8RQfTInl+hxa53uYlvCxOfveg1SajETvtqgaEwiushAPtz/DcsGww5Ym4wZ6LmGPadrmeAMie/pVreN+GU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Z27lBmP5; 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="Z27lBmP5" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71602C4CECD; Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:13:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730495624; bh=vrlQ5nkW/wzdW59TsobYC/cGECVvY5bM8O3JACd5vR8=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Z27lBmP5zV5S/Lm4wBLsyOzhvmCy+PaD+aSiDJoAmhJdwIpgWu7go74DLTbL/DmAQ m4VM1XbkSRlPF534HjALo5a+qdkHgu9qy7+8tWZNobfIsypdUOnVT0zMYvrKbUDL4O pr1BHsYZ9HdZm3+qsutLq53SUhzXTlall69hNmqjdD/bOYezVVbNGKRm6m/IunumGl yvVYFXZZqN56obQzEkxMIxL4DYP8SF14xIQkYNBExMzLjQ854ir3tdEZDwvoO4vfKs /NGBCW4lZDq+POOJewWgjrRi1z/wGj1/cGx7DlUqqRKhNteHFYOtX09Yf+Ee0YlFcE f90hDeNlC3TVQ== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@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 23:13:39 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/20] x86: Trenchboot secure dynamic launch Linux kernel support From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: "Thomas Gleixner" , "Ross Philipson" , , , , , , , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: <20240913200517.3085794-1-ross.philipson@oracle.com> <87a5eivgku.ffs@tglx> In-Reply-To: <87a5eivgku.ffs@tglx> 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 is = called > >> TrenchBoot, which is hosted on Github (links below). The kernel featur= e enabling > >> the use of Dynamic Launch technology is referred to as "Secure Launch"= within > >> the kernel code. As such the prefixes sl_/SL_ or slaunch/SLAUNCH will = be seen > >> in the code. The stub code discussed above is referred to as the SL st= ub. > > > > 1. I don't see any tags in most of the patches so don't get the rush. T= his > > includes also patches for x86. Why I would care to review TPM patche= s > > 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 early > > 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, so > 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. > > Thanks, > > tglx BR, Jarkko