On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 22:24, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
