On Sun Feb 25, 2024 at 1:23 PM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > On 2/23/24 07:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 3:58 AM EET, Daniel P. Smith wrote: > >>> Just adding here that I wish we also had a log transcript of bug, which > >>> is right now missing. The explanation believable enough to move forward > >>> but I still wish to see a log transcript. > >> > >> That will be forth coming. > > > > I did not respond yet to other responses that you've given in the past > > 12'ish hours or so (just woke up) but I started to think how all this > > great and useful information would be best kept in memory. Some of it > > has been discussed in the past but there is lot of small details that > > are too easily forgotten. > > > > I'd think the best "documentation" approach here would be inject the > > spec references to the sites where locality behaviour is changed so > > that it is easy in future cross-reference them, and least of risk > > of having code changes that would break anything. I think this way > > all the information that you provided is best preserved for the > > future. > > > > Thanks a lot for great and informative responses! > > No problem at all. > > Here is a serial output[1] from a dynamic launch using Linux Secure > Launch v7[2] with one additional patch[3] to dump TPM driver state. But are this fixes for a kernel tree with [2] applied. If the bugs do not occur in the mainline tree without the out-of-tree feature, they are not bug fixes. They should then really be part of that series. BR, Jarkko
