linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH v3 02/26] crypto: ccp: Add Platform Security Processor (PSP) device support

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, 6 Sep 2017 16:26:52 -0500
From:   Gary R Hook <gary.hook@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        \"Radim Krčmář\" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC Part2 PATCH v3 02/26] crypto: ccp: Add Platform Security
 Processor (PSP) device support

On 09/06/2017 03:46 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 03:38:38PM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
>> This bit of my struggle -- tip/master is not in sync with cryptodev-2.6 [1].
>
> Aaha.
>
>> In order to expand the CCP driver we need the following commits from the
>> cryptodev-2.6
>>
>> 57de3aefb73f crypto: ccp - remove ccp_present() check from device initialize
>> d0ebbc0c407a crypto: ccp - rename ccp driver initialize files as sp device
>> f4d18d656f88 crypto: ccp - Abstract interrupt registeration
>> 720419f01832 crypto: ccp - Introduce the AMD Secure Processor device
>> 970e8303cb8d crypto: ccp - Use devres interface to allocate PCI/iomap and cleanup
>>
>> I cherry-picked these patches into tip/master before starting the SEV work.
>>
>> Since these patches were already reviewed and accepted hence I did not include it
>> in my RFC series. I am not sure what is best way to handle it. Should I include
>> these patches in the series ? or just mention them in cover letter ? I am looking
>> for suggestions on how to best communicate it. thanks
>
> Right, so I'm assuming those will go upstream this merge window, no?

They were included in a pull request (for 4.14) from Herbert, dated Monday.