On 11/2/24 8:22 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
This is my alternative patch set to the TPM patches included into
Trenchboot series v11. I don't mind to which tree these are
picked in the end. All the patches also have my sob's, so in that
sense things are also cleared up.
At least slmodule needs to be patched in the series given that
tpm_chip_set_locality() returns zero on success.
It is not really my problem but I'm also wondering how the
initialization order is managed. What if e.g. IMA happens to
initialize before slmodule?
Cc: Daniel P. Smith <dpsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Daniel P. Smith (2):
tpm, tpm_tis: Close all localities
tpm, tpm_tis: Address positive localities in
tpm_tis_request_locality()
Ross Philipson (2):
tpm, tpm_tis: allow to set locality to a different value
tpm: sysfs: Show locality used by kernel
drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c | 10 ++++++++++
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
include/linux/tpm.h | 10 ++++++++++
4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Jarkko,
We have tested with this latest RFC patch set and it does what we need.
Things also functioned correctly when we closed down the TXT DRTM and
brought up a follow on kernel with kexec. So we are good with dropping
our TPM patches and adopting these. The last question is do you want to
take these in directly as a standalone patch set or do you want us to
submit them with our next patch set (v12)?
And for what it is worth if you want it:
Tested-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks again for your help.
Ross
