Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log

From: Nayna
Date: Tue Jan 31 2017 - 15:56:29 EST

On 01/31/2017 11:16 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:08:42PM +0530, Nayna wrote:

From: "Ken Goldman" <kgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 26-Jan-2017 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs
support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log
To: <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You do not need to send a new patch set version as long as this
one gets peer tested. And it needs to be tested without hacks
like plumbing TCPA with TPM 2.0 in QEMU. OF code paths needs to
be peer tested to be more specific.

For me the code itself looks good but I simply cannot take it in
in the current situation.


Tested-by: Kenneth Goldman <kgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I validated a firmware event log taken from a Power 8 against PCR 0-7
values for the SHA-1 and SHA-256 banks from a Nuvoton TPM 2.0 chip on
that same platform.

Thank You Ken.

Jarkko, I hope now these patches can be accepted for 4.11.

Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna

I already sent my pull request to 4.11 and even today I found something
fishy. You declared a function local array by using a variable in "tpm:
enhance TPM 2.0 PCR extend to support multiple banks" (max_active_banks
or something). And the event log patches have just passed the review.

Yes. I have checked using clang and it has passed the clang.. and I also verified there were no complains during build.

What type of problem do you see ?

Also, to understand, this is related to multi-bank patchset. I mean how does it affect for event log patchset ?

Thanks & Regards,
- Nayna

I've applied them to my tree but I'll only include bug fixes for 4.11
pull requests. You'll have to wait till' 4.12.