[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171107160404.GG21466@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 09:04:04 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@...il.com>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE (IMA)"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
David Safford <safford@...ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: Move Linux RNG connection to hwrng
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:50:44AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> I am assuming you are talking about the following patches - using
> struct tpm_chip instead of chip number and this patch.
yes
> I won't be able to test if struct tpm_chip usage as I don't have
> multiple tpm hw in one machine. In case of tpm rng changes I can test
> only the lifecycle of tpm rng device. Is that enough? I feel my test
> will be limited. Please provide your thoughts on this.
That is certainly better than no testing.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists