linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:38:52 +1100 (AEDT)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
cc:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	Wilck@...el.com
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:

> On Mon Feb 22 16, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:56:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi James,
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry for the late pull request for 4.5. The reason for this was
> > > > the latency in my previous one. I picked with care the absolutely
> > > > critical fixes so that we can make a sound tpmdd release.
> > > >
> > > > I really hope you can still pick these as one of them is absolutely
> > > > critical to get authorization policy sealing API right (kernel keeps
> > > > it finger out of user space created objects).
> > >
> > > Pushed to next for more testing and review.
> > >
> > > This really is getting too late in the development cycle for so many
> > > fixes.  It means the code was not ready to be merged in the first place.
> >
> >I fully agree what you're saying. I'll learn the lesson here and take
> >factors more conservative attitude from now on. No excuses. I'm sorry
> >about this.
> >
> >Partly the reason for recent increase in regressions has been
> >increased real-world use of TPM2 and thus issues have started to pop
> >up that's a lame excuse anyway.
> >
> 
> Would it be worthwhile to have a tpm branch that gets pulled by -next
> directly so changes will have already been going through the paces in
> -next prior to the pull reuqest to James?

That would be useful, some other subsystems do that.



-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>