Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:48:29 +0200 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5 |
| |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 02:38:52PM +1100, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > On Mon Feb 22 16, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:56:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote: > > > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for the late pull request for 4.5. The reason for this was > > > > > the latency in my previous one. I picked with care the absolutely > > > > > critical fixes so that we can make a sound tpmdd release. > > > > > > > > > > I really hope you can still pick these as one of them is absolutely > > > > > critical to get authorization policy sealing API right (kernel keeps > > > > > it finger out of user space created objects). > > > > > > > > Pushed to next for more testing and review. > > > > > > > > This really is getting too late in the development cycle for so many > > > > fixes. It means the code was not ready to be merged in the first place. > > > > > >I fully agree what you're saying. I'll learn the lesson here and take > > >factors more conservative attitude from now on. No excuses. I'm sorry > > >about this. > > > > > >Partly the reason for recent increase in regressions has been > > >increased real-world use of TPM2 and thus issues have started to pop > > >up that's a lame excuse anyway. > > > > > > > Would it be worthwhile to have a tpm branch that gets pulled by -next > > directly so changes will have already been going through the paces in > > -next prior to the pull reuqest to James? > > That would be useful, some other subsystems do that.
I'll start using it.
> -- > James Morris > <jmorris@namei.org>
/Jarkko
| |