On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 03:08:42PM +0530, Nayna wrote: > > > From: "Ken Goldman" <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Date: 26-Jan-2017 2:53 AM > > Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs > > support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log > > To: <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>, > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Cc: > > > > You do not need to send a new patch set version as long as this > > one gets peer tested. And it needs to be tested without hacks > > like plumbing TCPA with TPM 2.0 in QEMU. OF code paths needs to > > be peer tested to be more specific. > > > > For me the code itself looks good but I simply cannot take it in > > in the current situation. > > > > /Jarkko > > > > > > Tested-by: Kenneth Goldman <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > I validated a firmware event log taken from a Power 8 against PCR 0-7 > > values for the SHA-1 and SHA-256 banks from a Nuvoton TPM 2.0 chip on > > that same platform. > > > > Thank You Ken. > > Jarkko, I hope now these patches can be accepted for 4.11. > > Thanks & Regards, > - Nayna
I already sent my pull request to 4.11 and even today I found something fishy. You declared a function local array by using a variable in "tpm: enhance TPM 2.0 PCR extend to support multiple banks" (max_active_banks or something). And the event log patches have just passed the review. I've applied them to my tree but I'll only include bug fixes for 4.11 pull requests. You'll have to wait till' 4.12. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
