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=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable 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 668F5C43610 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDA6206BB for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:43:01 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2BDA6206BB 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-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729466AbeKTBGt (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 20:06:49 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:60255 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727419AbeKTBGs (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Nov 2018 20:06:48 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Nov 2018 06:42:59 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,252,1539673200"; d="scan'208";a="87592502" Received: from tmuluk-mobl4.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.249.254.135]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2018 06:42:57 -0800 Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:42:56 +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 v5 7/7] tpm: pass an array of tpm_bank_list structures to tpm_pcr_extend() Message-ID: <20181119144256.GI8755@linux.intel.com> References: <20181114153108.12907-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20181114153108.12907-8-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20181116150352.GA3612@linux.intel.com> <9c534ed1-7832-7a3b-3e69-5fcc25c565cc@huawei.com> <20181118072901.GB5897@linux.intel.com> <5dd9fc97-2fb8-0e17-9ae0-88ce8db83903@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5dd9fc97-2fb8-0e17-9ae0-88ce8db83903@huawei.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:22:32AM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > On 11/18/2018 8:29 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:55:36PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > I understood from a previous email that you want to include all API > > > changes for crypto agility in the same patch set. > > > > Hmm.. maybe there is some misunderstading. Can you point me to the > > comment? Thanks. > > --- > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > Should I include the patch for tpm_pcr_extend() in this patch set, even > > if the set fixes the digest size issue? > > Just add some note to the cover letter. Makes sense here to have a > prequel patch for that because otherwise the implementation will be > a bit messy and half-baked. Ok, I guess it is OK as long as IMA (namely Mimi) gives that patch reviewed-by. It is not a huge change. PS. I noticed that earlier patches have postfixes like '_struct' and '_ptr' for function arguments. Can you remove them in the next version? /Jarkko