From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 182661AF0B9; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:29:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730719746; cv=none; b=ia9uObO+xXlLhHmtebFPvvjE/MVjZdlLyZUqvqDJ+50la87E0bbq0fddyc26JnT6ndQjm25C8/agz9AWbmuZo5q3e/ZM3m52ykbh9DvNiiFQao3nj7vLY1W2rxlyMwYxCeaDCJg2PXAnGx4i0WlN5LxuIakWJwmb9YgHR5BFObc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730719746; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YndyV64LlAcssMxxfdam3jL7dT/bXBUtGahkuxYP/uM=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=T5Piog6+kRvue0Z3VbU6PXOzE417vNl4IaQgAYEmkBCEu/U+DZwoT2Qyxel9n0WJU80o+qLGFGrCLMaiWMQNV4r/gzYGkdSgfAduqxuFKG83RlUovEPeefwjsTTacgDJRwQvWB2Ze5ovJN/ZaP/+qXMZrnUMIwEv+sNQlBC9vx4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=q9wfQdNF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="q9wfQdNF" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BEF6C4CECE; Mon, 4 Nov 2024 11:29:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1730719745; bh=YndyV64LlAcssMxxfdam3jL7dT/bXBUtGahkuxYP/uM=; h=Date:Cc:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=q9wfQdNFhUk6QnXQCUVvt1o5IdzZ9Rfk1f7ikvz6J9qV3AQfGw8fFMVbN4regbZeG sEHWP5hli1+5If8+ijpVSINfBW21eDtR00w6mWQLhQtQmMbI/ZSNIF5a1bx51UG/5v BQh9fDXPkqxxJ4Frsnf1tUoat0SDlcTDukM2boleErBIGXptsZE9FFkRqCuxHAtd1G 5fyVmm2Zh5z+aoenzTfr05aycn9ZhWKw44Nvx1Ld/4t9OzYZOnQu2Tm79UYaOehI2w /E7+7d0ZDNGtHe0Apv2Tr/UK8czzA21LT7Z1yw4CqQdWvOMl3d4ZR22Polc1cD88PU kOM9KL9VliCrw== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 13:29:00 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: , "Ross Philipson" , "Ard Biesheuvel" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Peter Huewe" , "Jason Gunthorpe" , "open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" , "open list" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Alternative TPM patches for Trenchboot From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" , "Daniel P. Smith" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: <20241102152226.2593598-1-jarkko@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: On Mon Nov 4, 2024 at 1:19 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > I don't categorically reject adding some code to early setup. We have > > some shared code EFI stub but you have to explain your changes > > proeprly. Getting rejection in some early version to some approach, > > and being still pissed about that years forward is not really way > > to go IMHO. > > ... and ignoring fixes that took me almost one day to fully get together > is neither. > > These address the awful commit messages, tpm_tis-only filtering and not > allowing repetition in the calls. Also considering early setup: it is not part of uapi. It can be reconsidered after the feature is landed as improvement (perhaps also easier to project then). I don't think TPM2_PolicyLocality potential conflict is important for kernel, and that is the only known race I know at this point. I don't really get the problem here. It's almost I like I should not have mentioned potential concurrency issue in order to not get slandered. BR, Jarkko