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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 9A2AACA9EAF for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B2C20679 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:18:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2439309AbfJXMSw (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:18:52 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42110 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726393AbfJXMSw (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:18:52 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D47B186; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 12:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 14:18:48 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Nayna , Mimi Zohar , Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: linux-integrity , ltp@lists.linux.it, Piotr =?iso-8859-2?Q?Kr=F3l?= , Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] ima: skip verifying TPM 2.0 PCR values Message-ID: <20191024121848.GA5908@dell5510> Reply-To: Petr Vorel References: <1558041162.3971.2.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20190517150456.GA11796@dell5510> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190517150456.GA11796@dell5510> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Hi all, I wonder what to do with this patch "ima: skip verifying TPM 2.0 PCR values" [1]. Is it a correct way to differentiate between TPM 1.2 and TPM 2.0? Or something else should be applied? How is the work on TPM 2.0 Linux sysfs interface? But even it's done in near future, we'd still need some way for older kernels. Kind regards, Petr [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1100733/