linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support for TPM 2.0 firmware event log

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:   Thu, 1 Dec 2016 13:43:18 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, peterhuewe@....de,
        tpmdd@...horst.net, jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support for TPM 2.0 firmware
 event log

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:29:00PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/26/2016 09:17 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 07:45:39AM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote:
> > > Unlike the device driver support for TPM 1.2, the TPM 2.0 does
> > > not support the securityfs pseudo files for displaying the
> > > firmware event log.
> > > 
> > > This patch enables support for providing the TPM 2.0 event log in
> > > binary form. TPM 2.0 event log supports a crypto agile format that
> > > records multiple digests, which is different from TPM 1.2. This
> > > patch enables the tpm_bios_log_setup for TPM 2.0  and adds the
> > > event log parser which understand the TPM 2.0 crypto agile format.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > 
> > I would not rush with new patch set versions as long as the testing is
> > almost completely lacking. I didn't even have time to read the previous
> > version properly before this came out.
> 
> Sure Jarkko. My apologies for multiple versions. I will wait for testing,
> before posting my next version.

You could send now a new version because probably anyone who wants
to review your patches has had a chance to look at it. My point was
that you wait for at least few days.

Maybe Jason could help testing your patches. I don't know when I have
time to setup environment. He had OF environment available.

/Jarkko