Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] tpm: add SNP SVSM vTPM driver

[Stefano Garzarella]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 01:57:31PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 01:53:59PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 11:03:07AM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 09:30:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 11:46:48AM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

[...]

> > > > > +
> > > > > +static struct tpm_class_ops tpm_chip_ops = {
> > > > > +	.flags = TPM_OPS_AUTO_STARTUP,
> > > > > +	.recv = tpm_svsm_recv,
> > > > > +	.send = tpm_svsm_send,
> > > > > +	.cancel = tpm_svsm_cancel,
> > > > > +	.status = tpm_svsm_status,
> > > > > +	.req_complete_mask = 0,
> > > > > +	.req_complete_val = 0,
> > > > > +	.req_canceled = tpm_svsm_req_canceled,
> > > >
> > > > If this was bundled with the patch set, this would short a lot:
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20250326161838.123606-1-jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> > > >
> > > > So maybe for v5? Including this patch does not take send_recv()
> > > > out of consideration, it is just smart thing to do in all cases.
> > > >
> > > > It would be probably easiest to roll out my patch together with
> > > > rest of the patch set.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I agree. I'll include it in this series and adapt this patch on top of
> > > it.
> >
> > Yeah, and you could simplify to goal in the other patch set: it's about
> > avoiding double-copy of a buffer.

Yep, agree!

> > It's a totally legit argument that we can measure. So in the end this
> > will help out landing that too because it takes away the extra cruft
> > and streamlines the goal.
>
> ... IMHO there is this unwritten law for upstreaming kernel features
> that goes something like "further the goals are from white papers,
> closer they are to mainline" ;-)

:-D I'll make a note of it!

Thanks,
Stefano