From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:16878 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752070AbdKZOVN (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:21:13 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:21:09 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: flihp , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Huewe , "Tricca, Philip B" , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, "Roberts, William C" Subject: Re: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command validation fails Message-ID: <20171126142109.rs434iod4gwekrbo@linux.intel.com> References: <20171117100724.19257-1-javierm@redhat.com> <20171120231512.6wpqgcggfta3am7m@linux.intel.com> <7c148cf0-2403-55cf-1633-ff326d5c6f7b@redhat.com> <20171121123006.esr7yxs5lvorlfjf@linux.intel.com> <602091d7-1b16-4694-57b2-8031acce8cbc@twobit.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:25:29PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > That was my interpretation as well and what I was arguing about. I'm glad to > know that you also think the same. It could be that this rationale has been your earlier emails but I just haven't recognized it :-) I think I'm starting to buy this. I don't have any fixed standing points anything basically. It is just better to be really resistant with anything that is related to user-kernel interaction until you really get it... /Jarkko