On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 01:52, <ross.philipson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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> > If the patches as proposed work for you, please incorporate them into your v12.
