From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] tpm: cleanup/fixes in existing event log support Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:40:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20161115174012.3pfxzz2ugrdglj4o@intel.com> References: <1479117656-12403-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161114223322.5uzdc7sob2vukwrq@intel.com> <20161115002514.qhweuyzg5mgebusq@intel.com> <20161115021543.d4wgjqid7fut4y4c@intel.com> <582A9EAE.5000505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <582A9EAE.5000505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org To: Nayna Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, peterhuewe@gmx.de, tpmdd@selhorst.net, jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:05:42AM +0530, Nayna wrote: > > > On 11/15/2016 07:45 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 04:25:14PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 02:33:23PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 05:00:47AM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > > > This patch set includes the cleanup and bug fixes patches, previously > > > > > part of the "tpm: add the securityfs pseudo files support for TPM 2.0 > > > > > firmware event log" patch set, in order to upstream them more quickly. > > > > > > > > I applied the patches. I'm not yet sure whether these are part of the > > > > 4.10 pull request or whether I postpone to 4.11 (my preference would be > > > > 4.10 but I do not want to close that right now). I'll do testing next > > > > week before doing pull request. > > > > > > > > I hope that the commits gets some reviews and testing now that they are > > > > easily testable in my master branch. > > > > > > Event log still works and they do not seem to break TPM 2.0 (tried both > > > machine with tpm_crb and tpm_tis). > > > > > > Stefan: would you mind check that these do not break your TPM 1.2 > > > environment? I already tried wih TPM 1.2 machine but probably would > > > make sense to peer test. > > > > I'm dropping commits 8/9 and 9/9 from my tree and *will not* include > > them to my 4.10 pull request. > > Will fix this and resend the patch 8/9 and 9/9 again. I applied fix from Colin. I for OF specific patches in this patch set I do not have means to test the code paths that exercise OF specific functionality. This is what worries me a bit. If I had tested-by from someone running a system that can exercise those code paths, I would be less worried. /Jarkko