linux-kernel - Re: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command validation fails

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:   Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:21:09 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
Cc:     flihp <flihp@...bit.us>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        "Tricca, Philip B" <philip.b.tricca@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
Subject: Re: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command
 validation fails

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:25:29PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> That was my interpretation as well and what I was arguing about. I'm glad to
> know that you also think the same.

It could be that this rationale has been your earlier emails but
I just haven't recognized it :-) I think I'm starting to buy this.

I don't have any fixed standing points anything basically. It is
just better to be really resistant with anything that is related
to user-kernel interaction until you really get it...

/Jarkko