On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:24:34AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> 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.
And it is also in a shape that it can soon be merged (within
few iterations at most).
/Jarkko
