On Fri Oct 04 19, James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 13:37 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 09:37 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 21:51 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > As has been seen recently, binding the buffer allocation and > > tpm_buf > > together is sometimes far from optimal. > > Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I must have missed the > discussion. Refer to e13cd21ffd50 ("tpm: Wrap the buffer from the caller to tpm_buf in tpm_send()") for the details.Yes, I get that, but to my mind that calls for moving the tpm_init/destroy_buf into the callers of tpm_send (which, for the most part, already exist), which means there's no need to separate the buf and data lifetimes. James
Sumit has been working on a patchset that does this. His patchset converts both the asymmetric keys and trusted keys code to using the tpm_buf manipulation functions.
