On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 01:40:09AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:34:47PM +0200, Morten Linderud wrote:
> > Some vendors report faulty values in the acpi TPM2 table. This causes
>
> s/acpi/ACPI/
>
> > the function to abort with EIO and essentially short circuits the
>
> s/the function/tpm_read_log()/
>
> > tpm_read_log function as we never even attempt to read the EFI
> > configuration table for a log.
>
> >
> > This changes the condition to only look for a positive return value,
> > else hands over the eventlog discovery to the EFI configuration table
> > which should hopefully work better.
>
> Please, write in imperative ("Change...").
>
> Also exlicitly state how are you changing the check for
> tpm_read_log_acpi() in tpm_read_log().
>
> You could *even* have a snippet how the checks change
> here for clarity.
>
> > It's unclear to me if there is a better solution to this then just
> > failing. However, I do not see any clear reason why we can't properly
> > fallback to the EFI configuration table.
>
> This paragraph should not be part of the commit message.
>
> Rest of the commit message made sense can you add also fixes tag
> as this is clearly a bug fix?
>
> Also, please remove the two spurious diff's from the commit that
> are not relevant for a stable bug fix (pr_warn() and comment
> removal).
Yo,
This is the v1 of the patch which you reviewed a year ago.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-integrity&m=163225066613340&w=2
V2 mostly fixed the commit message, but there where some more pointers. I'm
happy to submit a V3 if we can agree on all the details.
V2 review is here:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-integrity&m=165475008823837&w=2
--
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
