[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181119124822.GB8755@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:48:22 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Struk, Tadeusz" <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 16/17] tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of
tpm_transmit()
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 10:52:46PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> This is still NACK from my side
Last time you spoke about tboot intervention but I don't see why as even
sending a single command is not atomic in the true sense of the word
i.e. if there was a problem that would already affect the existing code
and would essentially mean that tboot itself is broken.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists