From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (Jarkko Sakkinen) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:02:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/6] tpm-buf: create new functions for handling TPM buffers In-Reply-To: <6da309e727bec176fed7253ba5276f47f784d759.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1520720026.4495.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1520720090.4495.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <6da309e727bec176fed7253ba5276f47f784d759.camel@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 13:58 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, 2018-03-10 at 14:14 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > TPM_BUF_OVERFLOW = BIT(0), > > + TPM_BUF_2B = BIT(1), > > Instead of re-using this I would prefer to have another enum for > buffer type. tpm_buf_init() could have the signature: > > int tpm_buf_init(unsigned int type); > > For commands there should be a function: > > void tpm_buf_set_command_header(struct tpm_buf *buf, u16 tag, u32 ordinal); > > And tpm_buf_append_2b() should not exist at all. It should be > maintained automatically by other append commands. Can you send the next version this patch as a separate entity? Once I can land this we have kind of stable ground for the following patches. After that it is easier test and review them. /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html