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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:26:40 +0100
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <>
Cc:     flihp <>,,
        Peter Huewe <>,
        "Tricca, Philip B" <>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <>,,
        "Roberts, William C" <>
Subject: Re: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command
 validation fails

On 11/26/2017 03:21 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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.

No worries, Philip did a much better work than I did at explaining the issue.
In fact, at the beginning I also thought that was an user-space problem until
he explained to me that the problem was in the kernel.
> 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...

And I really appreciate. It's much better to go back and forth on patches than
having an unstable interface that causes regressions between kernel releases.

I've posted a v2 that addressed Philip's comments. Hopefully this should be in
a good shape now.

> /Jarkko

Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement
Red Hat

Powered by blists - more mailing lists