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  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 17:22:18 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterhuewe@....de,
        tpmdd@...horst.net, patrickc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send()
 performance

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:17:42PM +0530, Nayna Jain wrote:
> Yeah, you are right, the first version of this patch sent all the
> bytes together, but after hearing ddwg inputs, i.e. "The last byte was
> introduced for error checking purposes (history).", I reverted back to
> original to be safe.

What does that mean ie error checking purposes?

> It seems that the last byte was sent from the beginning (27084ef
> [PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips,), does anyone
> remember the reason ?

Sent from the beginning?

/Jarkko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists