linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration

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:   Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:54:12 -0800
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:     tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
        Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@...il.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: drop chip->is_open and chip->duration_adjusted

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:28:32PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:11:54PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > How strong is your opposition here? I do not see any exceptional damage
> > done but see some subtle but still significant benefits.
> 
> It seems OK, but I never like seeing locking made less clear - this
> should be manageable, and there isn't a performance concern with tpm
> either..

OK good to hear. I'm using this as part of my RM patch set. Just wanted
to get some feedback for this patch. Not for the next rel.

/Jarkko