From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3452C47404 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880A6222C5 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:37:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388146AbfJDRhj (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:37:39 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:61550 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387428AbfJDRhi (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:37:38 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x94HYJ9u114663 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:37:35 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ve9kwjc0w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 04 Oct 2019 13:37:35 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:37:33 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 4 Oct 2019 18:37:30 +0100 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x94HbT3f45547756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:37:29 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19645204E; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:37:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.85.197.95]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8A752050; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:37:28 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm_buf From: Mimi Zohar To: James Bottomley , Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jerry Snitselaar , Sumit Garg , Stefan Berger , Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , open list Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 13:37:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1570207062.3563.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20191003185103.26347-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20191003185103.26347-3-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1570207062.3563.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19100417-0016-0000-0000-000002B41761 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19100417-0017-0000-0000-00003315282D Message-Id: <1570210647.5046.78.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-10-04_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=910 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910040148 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 09:37 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 21:51 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > As has been seen recently, binding the buffer allocation and tpm_buf > > together is sometimes far from optimal. > > Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I must have missed the > discussion. Refer to e13cd21ffd50 ("tpm: Wrap the buffer from the caller to tpm_buf in tpm_send()") for the details. Mimi