On Wed Aug 2, 2023 at 12:01 AM EEST, Tushar Sugandhi wrote: > Thanks for the response Jarkko. > > On 8/1/23 12:02, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > The short summary is cryptic to say the least. > Do you mean the patch subject line, or the description below? It is in the process documentation: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.3/process/submitting-patches.html#the-canonical-patch-format > > "update counter" does not map it to have anything to do with PCRs. > Agreed. I noticed that when I was testing the patches. > The update counter is same for all PCRs. It was also the same for > the two hash algo's I tested it for (SHA1 and SHA256). But the spec > description and Kernel implementation requires to pass the > pcr_idx and hash algo to PCR_Read command to get the update counter. I was referring to the fact that TPM2_PCR_Read does not have a field called "update counter" in its response but it has a field called "pcrUpdateCounter". Please refer to thigs that actually exist. In the long description you are in some occasions referring to the same object as: 1. "update counter" 2. "pcrUpdateCounter" 3. "PcrUpdateCounter" This is ambiguous and wrong. >From long description I see zero motivation to ack this change, except some heresay about IMA requiring it. Why does IMA need update_cnt and why this is not documented to the long description? > But I can update tpm2_pcr_read() if you are ok with it. > Please let me know. You can add "u32 *update_cnt". BR, Jarkko _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
