[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190208215110.GA13567@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:51:10 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] tpm: Unify the send callback behaviourä
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:18:40PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 2/8/19 3:46 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 03:32:32PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > >
> > > tpm_del_char_device also needs the start/stop!
> > Done and updated the commit message to have all the call sites:
> >
> > * tpm_chip_register()
> > * tpm_class_shutdown()
> > * tpm_del_char_device()
> > * tpm_pm_suspend()
> > * tpm_try_get_ops() and tpm_put_ops()
> > * tpm2_del_space()
>
>
> I tested this now with tpm_vtpm_proxy, TPM 1.2, (TIS|CRB) + TPM 2.0. Looks
> good now - rock solid so to say. And while we are at it ... :-)
Thank you for your support. I don't think these quite distruptive
changes would have made in without any growing pains. The way
tpm_transmit() used to be had become quite a mess with all the nested
calls and weird locking flags. Now we have a good baseline to forward
:-)
I rebased the branches to the latest security/next-general. Probably
do the PR after the middle week (ETA Thu).
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists