[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <14e97066-4dfc-95e7-acc1-5d18f10114cd@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:26:40 +0100
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.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 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