On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 14:33 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > Will this delay the TPM initialization, causing IMA to go into "TPM > > > bypass mode"? > > > > Of course it will delay the init. > > > > As I've stated before the real fix for the bypass issue would be > > to make TPM as part of the core but this has not received much > > appeal. I think I've sent patch for this once. IMA initialization is way later than the TPM. IMA is on the late_initcall(), while the TPM is on the subsys_initcall(). I'm not sure moving the TPM to core would make a difference. There must be a way of deferring IMA until after the TPM has been initialized. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. (The TPM on the Pi still has a dependency on clock.) > It has been like that people reject a fix to a race condition and > then I get complains on adding minor latency to the init because > of the existing race. It is ridicilous, really. I agree, but adding any latency will cause a regression. Mimi
