From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Sakkinen Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 19:12:42 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT v4 0/5] Add generic trusted keys framework/subsystem Message-Id: <20190821191242.7z3en7om2few4tao@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: References: <1565682784-10234-1-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org> <20190819165400.xsgpbtbj26y7d2wb@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: To: Sumit Garg Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, Herbert Xu , davem@davemloft.net, peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, jejb@linux.ibm.com, Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Mimi Zohar , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Casey Schaufler , Ard Biesheuvel , Daniel Thompson , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "tee-dev @ lists . linaro . org" On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:16:46AM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > I agree here that 5/5 should go along with TEE patch-set. But if you > look at initial v1 patch-set, the idea was to get feedback on trusted > keys abstraction as a standalone patch along with testing using a TPM > (1.x or 2.0). > > Since Mimi has tested this patch-set with TPM (1.x & 2.0), I am happy > to merge 5/5 with TEE patch-set. But it would be nice if I could get > feedback on 5/5 before I send next version of TEE patch-set. OK, that is understandable. I'll check it out tomorrow. /Jarkko