[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171114143421.3jxn6fzvgp2xmyk6@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:34:21 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@...il.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 09:04:04AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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
WFM too.
Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists