linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tpm_ffa_crb: access tpm service over FF-A direct message request v2

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 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z/n9I88/phEi1GNq@e129823.arm.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2025 06:41:55 +0100
From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca,
	stuart.yoder@....com, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm_ffa_crb: access tpm service over FF-A direct
 message request v2

> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 11:43:24AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 01:37:31PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 10:08:56AM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > > For secure partition with multi service, tpm_ffa_crb can access tpm
> > > > service with direct message request v2 interface according to chapter 3.3,
> > > > TPM Service Command Response Buffer Interface Over FF-A specification [0].
> > > >
> > > > This patch reflects this spec to access tpm service over
> > > > FF-A direct message request v2 ABI.
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0138/latest/ [0]
> > >
> > > Sorry, did not notice in the first round:
> > >
> > > 1. Does not have "[0]" postfix.
> > > 2. Only for lore links:
> > >    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.12/maintainer/configure-git.html#creating-commit-links-to-lore-kernel-org
> > >
> >
> > I was about to comment on the presence of link itself but left it to
> > the maintainer. It was part of the first commit log from Stuart. If it
> > is so important that it requires mention in each commit, it better me
> > made part of the file itself to avoid having to mention again and again.
> > Just my opinion, I leave it to the maintainers.
>
> Sure, this does make sense to me.

Sorry for late answer.
I think in the file already mention the proper document number,
Here It doesn't need to mention the link but spec name and version only.
I'll send again.

Thanks.

--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun