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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708D1C67839 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:25:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3C720851 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:25:15 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3A3C720851 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728220AbeLLSZO (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:25:14 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:64249 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727881AbeLLSZO (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:25:14 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Dec 2018 10:25:14 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,345,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="127337049" Received: from hekner-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.249.254.170]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2018 10:25:09 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:25:08 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Roberto Sassu Cc: zohar@linux.ibm.com, david.safford@ge.com, monty.wiseman@ge.com, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/7] tpm: pass an array of tpm_bank_list structures to tpm_pcr_extend() Message-ID: <20181212182508.GG6333@linux.intel.com> References: <20181204082138.24600-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20181204082138.24600-8-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20181205001417.GF1233@linux.intel.com> <63ac9e36-34ac-6a1d-553d-dac5cab98d43@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <63ac9e36-34ac-6a1d-553d-dac5cab98d43@huawei.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 07:09:48PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > On 12/5/2018 1:14 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 09:21:38AM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > The new tpm_bank_list structure has been preferred to the tpm_digest > > > structure, to let the caller specify the size of the digest (which may be > > > unknown to the TPM driver). > > > > Why is that? Didn't previous commit query these? > > > > > +struct tpm_bank_list { > > > + u16 alg_id; > > > + u16 extend_size; > > > + const u8 *extend_array; > > > +}; > > > > Naming is not good here. If this only for extending shouldn't that > > be in the structs name? > > tpm_extend_input? I think something like this would be appropriate: struct tpm_extend_digest { u16 alg_id; u16 size; u8 *data; }; /Jarkko