[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <43dcb260-a85c-fd71-fcc0-5d2526d72520@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:27:28 +0100
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Philip Tricca <philip.b.tricca@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
William Roberts <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command validation
fails
On 11/21/2017 10:07 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 12:15 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
>> matters less than breaking the sandbox.
>>
>
> Yes, sorry for that. It wasn't clear to me that there was a sandbox and my
> lack of familiarity with the code was the reason why I posted as a RFC in
> the first place.
>
> Do you agree with Jason's suggestion to send a synthesized TPM command in
> the that the command isn't supported?
>
Sorry, this should had been: send a synthesized TPM response in the case that
the command isn't supported.
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement
Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists