On Tue, 2019-01-29 at 14:31 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 01:53:44PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > On 1/23/19 1:20 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:23:25PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > Make the changes necessary to detach TPM space code and TPM > > > > activation > > > > code out of the tpm_transmit() flow because of both of these > > > > can cause > > > > nested tpm_transmit() calls. The nesteds calls make the whole > > > > flow hard > > > > to maintain, and thus, it is better to just fix things now > > > > before this > > > > turns into a bigger mess. > > > > > > Any reasons not to merge this soon? > > > > I suppose v10 hasn't changed anything signinficat. So, not from my > > perspective. Were you waiting for more Reviewed-by's? > > Yeah, for example TPM space touching changes would be good to peer > check with James. I could have easily forgotten some implementation > detail, and it has been very stable piece off code, so don't want > to break it. Guess won't yet try to put this v5.1. So the implementation detail I was looking for: internal kernel use of tpm_transmit_cmd() without tpm_find/try_get_ops() doesn't seem to exist, so I think this is all safe. You can add my Reviewed-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> But I've got to say I can't test this yet because you've made a huge problem for me in the tpm security patches: they introduce a kernel space which now becomes somewhat problematic because the space handling moved into the device common code. To get both these things to work together so I can test it, space handling is going to have to come slightly down from device common code so the kernel can use it. James
