On Mon Nov 4, 2024 at 1:19 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > I don't categorically reject adding some code to early setup. We have > > some shared code EFI stub but you have to explain your changes > > proeprly. Getting rejection in some early version to some approach, > > and being still pissed about that years forward is not really way > > to go IMHO. > > ... and ignoring fixes that took me almost one day to fully get together > is neither. > > These address the awful commit messages, tpm_tis-only filtering and not > allowing repetition in the calls. Also considering early setup: it is not part of uapi. It can be reconsidered after the feature is landed as improvement (perhaps also easier to project then). I don't think TPM2_PolicyLocality potential conflict is important for kernel, and that is the only known race I know at this point. I don't really get the problem here. It's almost I like I should not have mentioned potential concurrency issue in order to not get slandered. BR, Jarkko
