lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT v4 0/5] Add generic trusted keys framework/subsystem
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 22:24, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:22:59PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > This patch-set is an outcome of discussion here [1]. It has evolved very
> > much since v1 to create, consolidate and generalize trusted keys
> > subsystem.
> >
> > This framework has been tested with trusted keys support provided via TEE
> > but I wasn't able to test it with a TPM device as I don't possess one. It
> > would be really helpful if others could test this patch-set using a TPM
> > device.
>
> I think 1/5-4/5 make up a non-RFC patch set that needs to reviewed,
> tested and merged as a separate entity.
>

Okay.

> On the other hand 5/5 cannot be merged even if I fully agreed on
> the code change as without TEE patch it does not add any value for
> Linux.
>

I agree here that 5/5 should go along with TEE patch-set. But if you
look at initial v1 patch-set, the idea was to get feedback on trusted
keys abstraction as a standalone patch along with testing using a TPM
(1.x or 2.0).

Since Mimi has tested this patch-set with TPM (1.x & 2.0), I am happy
to merge 5/5 with TEE patch-set. But it would be nice if I could get
feedback on 5/5 before I send next version of TEE patch-set.

> To straighten up thing I would suggest that the next patch set
> version would only consists of the first four patches and we meld
> them to the shape so that we can land them to the mainline. Then
> it should be way more easier to concentrate the actual problem you
> are trying to resolve.
>

Okay will send next patch-set version with first four patches only.

-Sumit

> /Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-20 07:47    [W:0.185 / U:7.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site