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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:22:39 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Bartosz Szczepanek <bsz@...ihalf.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        peterhuewe@....de,
        ThiƩbaud Weksteen <tweek@...gle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] efi/libstub/tpm: Retrieve TPM event log in 2.0 format

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 15:21, Bartosz Szczepanek <bsz@...ihalf.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:26 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Collides with Matthew's changes. I want to land those change first
> > because they are almost production ready.
> >
> > Maybe you should consider reviewing those changes to make sure that
> > they make sense to you so that you can build these on top of after
> > these have landed.
>
> Yeah, I think so. Actually, I wasn't aware of Matthew's efforts, as it
> didn't appear on linux-efi mailing list. (On bad, I haven't checked
> linux-integrity.)
>
> At this point, I think it makes more sense to limit this patchset to
> 5/5 patch, which makes TPM event log initialized on ARM platforms.
> Patches 1-4 introduce nothing more than Matthew already did, maybe
> except putting calc_tpm2_event_size to a library instead of making it
> inline. This function has already grown a bit so it may be a better
> approach, but that's nothing to affect functionality.
>
> I'll pull Matthew changes to my tree to confirm operation on ARM
> platforms, if that works fine the only thing to merge would be 5/5 +
> optionally the library change, if we reach agreement on that.
>

Sounds good, and yes, it would be good to cc patches that affect the
EFI subsystem to linux-efi as well.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists