On Fri, Nov 01 2024 at 00:37, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu Oct 31, 2024 at 9:25 PM EET, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> So this looks pretty reasonable to me by now and I'm inclined to take it
>> through the tip x86 tree, but that needs reviewed/acked-by's from the
>> crypto and TPM folks. EFI has been reviewed already.
>>
>> Can we make progress on this please?
>
> So TPM patches do have bunch of glitches:
>
> - 15/20: I don't get this. There is nothing to report unless tree
> is falling. The reported-by tag literally meaningless. Maybe this
> is something that makes sense with this feature. Explain from that
> angle.
> - 16/20: Is this actually a bug fix? If it is should be before 15/20.
> - 17/20: the commit message could do a better job explaining how the
> locality can vary. I'm not sure how this will be used by rest of
> the patch set.
> - 18/20: I'm not confident we want to give privilege to set locality
> to the user space. The commit message neither makes a case of this.
> Has this been tested to together with bus encryption (just checking)?
Can you please explicitely voice your detailed technical concerns in
replies to the actual patches?
Thanks,
tglx
