[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: FW: [RFC PATCH] tpm: don't return -EINVAL if TPM command validation fails
On 11/26/2017 03:21 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:25:29PM +0100, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> That was my interpretation as well and what I was arguing about. I'm glad to
>> know that you also think the same.
> It could be that this rationale has been your earlier emails but
> I just haven't recognized it :-) I think I'm starting to buy this.

No worries, Philip did a much better work than I did at explaining the issue.
In fact, at the beginning I also thought that was an user-space problem until
he explained to me that the problem was in the kernel.

> I don't have any fixed standing points anything basically. It is
> just better to be really resistant with anything that is related
> to user-kernel interaction until you really get it...

And I really appreciate. It's much better to go back and forth on patches than
having an unstable interface that causes regressions between kernel releases.

I've posted a v2 that addressed Philip's comments. Hopefully this should be in
a good shape now.

> /Jarkko

Best regards,
Javier Martinez Canillas
Software Engineer - Desktop Hardware Enablement
Red Hat

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-29 12:27    [W:0.055 / U:5.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site