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 Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9775C54E66 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 10:36:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=fSkUOcUx; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Tv96l40wxz3vX7 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:36:31 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=fSkUOcUx; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (mail.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2404:9400:2221:ea00::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Tv95v3xGYz3cN6 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:35:47 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1710239743; bh=RZEfYiLTkNnDL11Vo6sbxwGAoRDVBPoFLJr3cr56jVk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=fSkUOcUxT9cjPVrU6sP8jJWYfWnjxzJLfKf1w6I4iWC+czN6ATNMjWO3u4Ol/6NIA klGcwVNW/8svX8Sa0TDuNXmzpmRaIWCIIJiAZwux8+TQ3uC3zJKgS+4d8VliKauaaY QdI3599p5DxoYz1/zN+FEVUnepZ4ntyegPliodd6Q0GAAbzech0kGB5Sx2JeG/YXdz RK3wuxQVdXT+La7rI/Bh4+uNV4SHIuCZXcVn2QbzLvPia4W0BFpkoWtyvQOi29Hrqo QNBAi86yP7jeyw45oqpE9N7aCxKKaxoPn9m8zJIHkxcpuba/Z1fMqcONSLaWpLv5kc BYSV9xOI9uHDA== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Tv95q63Rvz4x0t; Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:35:43 +1100 (AEDT) From: Michael Ellerman To: Stefan Berger , Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: of: If available Use linux,sml-log to get the log and its size In-Reply-To: <663a3834-056e-4dda-99dd-16ee8734100e@linux.ibm.com> References: <20240306155511.974517-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com> <20240306155511.974517-3-stefanb@linux.ibm.com> <663a3834-056e-4dda-99dd-16ee8734100e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 21:35:43 +1100 Message-ID: <877ci74u0w.fsf@mail.lhotse> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: peterhuewe@gmx.de, viparash@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rnsastry@linux.ibm.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Stefan Berger writes: > On 3/7/24 15:00, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> On Thu Mar 7, 2024 at 9:57 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> in short summary: s/Use/use/ >>> >>> On Wed Mar 6, 2024 at 5:55 PM EET, Stefan Berger wrote: >>>> If linux,sml-log is available use it to get the TPM log rather than the >>>> pointer found in linux,sml-base. This resolves an issue on PowerVM and KVM >>>> on Power where after a kexec the memory pointed to by linux,sml-base may >>>> have been corrupted. Also, linux,sml-log has replaced linux,sml-base and >>>> linux,sml-size on these two platforms. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger >>> >>> So shouldn't this have a fixed tag, or not? >> >> In English: do we want this to be backported to stable kernel releases or not? > > Ideally, yes. v3 will have 3 patches and all 3 of them will have to be > backported *together* and not applied otherwise if any one of them > fails. Can this be 'guaranteed'? You can use Depends-on: to indicate the relationship. cheers