From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792578249; b=yMsDSqIXu1B84SqZ/LEv0lqoE/+4BCSs83EaTdKFGkFoRFiMOuPvSWeZsQzoK2EZWVUu PE2nvGugw+/DdOkeZ9TODButM4U5Z0diydJqj4sbFUcKdr2T7qEOaLXnpLsy3a6en/knS tLIDMGReHEOvg1d4y8jiAh6/8XSOIQr6x0g0hHkDZBEuF/sAEfLxM+ZsqxmAeH7mjv3/d 4XYAapVz/DA9QTLeJbAhgXTyqhsDp7XOf1GLl/kAseI6xxrL1sWDmpy7Gh8Vyrw9SkGTi TMvWiFuwsvRj6FgM7xhN/ImxKa/dQI4emWsh/jgUegy0Mu3ezFYqJ+um6ArxwMBNBbQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792578249; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=qYDypIT7QE1F/eBnrsyHEhw9MO0/8jcAkyVwmN8UTzo=; b=l0AIedGKmYnSXTOFsPkwaAcQRG9d/jdBVyHF2687oKHCyTkl/5heMRK6f0FWdRUfskg5 mxh5p51kubT1ij5rj81fJBArBnieEpoduNdE1HmR4+9kxpW30V2wMFv1vmUPoOvHXdnoz 89zmChrTkg3OFmOZCf7Qy7YxgM7Gh4i9xs6AJhNYhQXSKGcJiFEC05ubkD0K+4/nNJdCM j/6Sn0IACoFdZleIUl4bqtB3GXMYjUDqyBdddxraW2WxLGpqJqk72xrw9wsMwIMP3cmoP vZ0SVf3aoF3TzaoxK06x2RN07jvV9z1bt9UtaH3frhXEZY2qoW107HldTo45/dW0ufw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=fgVuAH6R; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 85D96606A32A; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 10:24:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=fgVuAH6R Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 9BE531F000CA; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 10:24:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792578249; bh=qYDypIT7QE1F/eBnrsyHEhw9MO0/8jcAkyVwmN8UTzo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=fgVuAH6RN7jNUQ6qR+SgyDBAnt8REfpRA0GBNGvKj9x9SY040MEqFioc8qqpOTQTd LADBiBp2jk4P+dyuYDSatkuMoMFbvVq4mMlg+bl2jdNlbLcMlKdl4fw2hTg3GqBpga bn7DO+gh0ueFUvy9Wk2aPhNsE4L0Dxbh7i9g1FsLSVuuqP+F+j9Ji7azfIN/ZsZ5ZP brGvqJHDIfIvCyKqAfuMSSIjq/C4bdQlHt1xzCvPBL0o5u67Sp8VUEugcpUMNjh+JM yHmJo25FXNJyahCUTwug8RDzEiM0AqEXc/ZOFBQ5Z9LUjn44798VTsOzqoZzSPq23L fKqOBDY/286/w== Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2026 13:24:05 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Yuqi Xu Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , Jerry Snitselaar , James Bottomley , stable@vger.kernel.org, Vega , Ren Wei , xuyq21@lenovo.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] tpm: reject duplicate PCR banks in tpm2_get_pcr_allocation Message-ID: References: <9d27c4513a3c6fc32f9574ba192cd3bfcb2bac98.1790568982.git.xuyuqiabc@gmail.com> <20260930033300.30295-1-xuyuqiabc@gmail.com> <179257257405.72348.17698648428918034727@gmail.com> X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <179257257405.72348.17698648428918034727@gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 04:49:34PM +0800, Yuqi Xu wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 06:30:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > OK, so now that I was writing summary of TPM pull request changes, I > > came into conclusion that this is not a bug fix, unless you can show > > from TCG specifications that this is possible spec allowed behaviour. > > I cannot. Part 1 identifies a PCR bank by its hash algorithm, so one > hash is one bank. In the TCG reference implementation, TPM2_PCR_Allocate > keeps only the last selection when the same hash appears more than once, > and TPM2_GetCapability(TPM_CAP_PCRS) returns that allocation. A > conformant TPM will not report a duplicate. > > > So I can keep the commit but would remove fixes and bug related tags > > from this. It is essentially hardening and safety measure but not a > > bug fix. > > Please do. Drop Fixes:, Cc: stable, Reported-by:, and Closes:. The code > change can stay as hardening. > > > Do you have something to say that I might have missed? > > Only that the commit is not on the current master after the rebase. I > can send a v3 without those tags if that is easier than reapplying it > yourself. Thanks for quick reaction. I can still get it to the pull request. This was just a question of taxonomy. I think it is otherwise useful to have this validation in place (i.e. not disregarding the change overall). > > Thanks, > Yuqi > Br, Jarkko