[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240223175449.GA1112@sol.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 09:54:49 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, dpsmith@...rtussolutions.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, mjg59@...f.ucam.org,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, peterhuewe@....de,
jarkko@...nel.org, jgg@...pe.ca, luto@...capital.net,
nivedita@...m.mit.edu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, kanth.ghatraju@...cle.com,
trenchboot-devel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/15] x86: Add early SHA support for Secure Launch
early measurements
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 04:42:11PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> Yes, and I agree. We're not looking to try and force this in with
> underhand tactics.
>
> But a blind "nack to any SHA-1" is similarly damaging in the opposite
> direction.
>
Well, reviewers have said they'd prefer that SHA-1 not be included and given
some thoughtful reasons for that. But also they've given suggestions on how to
make the SHA-1 support more palatable, such as splitting it into a separate
patch and giving it a proper justification.
All suggestions have been ignored.
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists