linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] tpm/tpm_svsm: support TPM_CHIP_FLAG

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: <CAGxU2F6rfqGV_gJk-JxrCk3f9dWtYn_3o9RODh7cVG0X_oQWaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 09:13:34 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, 
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, 
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, 
	Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...nel.org>, 
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, 
	Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>, 
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] tpm/tpm_svsm: support TPM_CHIP_FLAG_SYNC

On Tue, 20 May 2025 at 22:02, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 06:06:50PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 May 2025 at 03:45, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 03:46:30PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> > > >
> > > > This driver does not support interrupts, and receiving the response is
> > > > synchronous with sending the command.
> > > >
> > > > Enable synchronous send() with TPM_CHIP_FLAG_SYNC, which implies that
> > > > ->send() already fills the provided buffer with a response, and ->recv()
> > > > is not implemented.
> > > >
> > > > Keep using the same pre-allocated buffer to avoid having to allocate
> > > > it for each command. We need the buffer to have the header required by
> > > > the SVSM protocol and the command contiguous in memory.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v5:
> > > > - changed order and parameter names to match tpm_try_transmit() [Jarkko]
> > > > v4:
> > > > - reworked commit description [Jarkko]
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_svsm.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > >

[...]

> > >
> > > I can pick this for 6.16.
> >
> > Great, thanks!
>
> Can you rebase this on top of my next branch and send one more version
> of the series (fake ancestor crap)?

I tried, but the last patch (this one) is based on the series merged
on the tip tree, where I introduced tpm_svsm.
I can see that series in linux-next merged with commit
16a56ee59ab8ee05e67de35bbb5782ef9cfb4f07,
but I can't see it in your next tree [1].

How do we proceed in such cases?

Just to be sure, did I use the right tree?

Thanks,
Stefano

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/linux-tpmdd.git/log/?h=next