[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1565789078.10490.10.camel@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 09:24:38 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...nel.org>
To: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, arnd@...db.de,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org,
daniel.thompson@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT v4 0/5] Add generic trusted keys framework/subsystem
Hi Sumit,
On Tue, 2019-08-13 at 13:22 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> This patch-set is an outcome of discussion here [1]. It has evolved very
> much since v1 to create, consolidate and generalize trusted keys
> subsystem.
>
> This framework has been tested with trusted keys support provided via TEE
> but I wasn't able to test it with a TPM device as I don't possess one. It
> would be really helpful if others could test this patch-set using a TPM
> device.
With the "CONFIG_HEADER_TEST" and "CONFIG_KERNEL_HEADER_TEST" config
options enabled, which is required for linux-next, it fails to build.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists