On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 07:22:52AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2023-03-20 at 07:15 -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > The test for the AMD fTPM problem, which just went in, actually uses > > the wrong function template for request_locality(). It's missing an > > argument so the build breaks: > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c:568:8: error: too few arguments to > > function ‘tpm_request_locality’ > > ret = tpm_request_locality(chip); > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c:43:12: note: declared here > > static int tpm_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int locality) > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Fix this by requesting zero locality. > > Actually, this is a bad interaction with the non-upstream patch to run > the kernel in locality two to allow key policy to distinguish kernel > release from user space release, which goes back to the debate over > hibernation keys. I'll carry it separately until (or if ever) we get a > resolution on how to do this. BTW, do you have a newer version of https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20230216201410.15010-1-James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I'm planning to flush testing queue as I have now more bandwidth for TPM and keyring (actually I'm looking RISC-V fTPM's at work). BR, Jarkko BR, Jarkko
