On 05/28/19 22:40, Imran Desai wrote: > > BZ: https://bugzilla.tianocore.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1781 > > EDK2 Support for SM3 digest algorithm is needed to enable TPM with SM3 PCR > banks. This digest algorithm is part of the China Crypto algorithm suite. > This integration has dependency on the openssl_1_1_1b integration into > edk2. > This patch links SM3 support into Tcg2Pei and Tcg2Dxe. > > > Signed-off-by: Imran Desai <imran.de...@intel.com> > Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> > Cc: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheu...@linaro.org> > Cc: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> > Cc: Stefan Berger <stef...@linux.ibm.com> > --- > OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32.dsc | 2 ++ > OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc | 2 ++ > OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc | 2 ++ > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
Wow, what just happened here? I'm noticing now that this patch has been pushed to the master branch as commit a7c7d21ffa9a. However, *NONE* of the OvmfPkg co-maintainers or reviewers have reviewed this patch! The commit message includes "Cc:" lines, but that's a lie. Probably not an intentional lie, but a lie nonetheless. These patches have *never* been delivered to my inbox, and if I look at the address list on the message instance that was reflected by the mailing list, that address list confirms the same. I'm pretty sure Imran's git configuration has a bug related to CC's. (I've extended the address list now, manually.) Jian: please revert this patch immediately, stating, as reason, that the patch review process was not honored. I'm sorry but I cannot let this slide -- if you look at commit a7c7d21ffa9a now, it suggests that the OvmfPkg maintainers / reviewers were CC'd (they weren't), but they ignored the patch (they didn't -- they couldn't see it), and that another maintainer pushed the patch just the same (which is factual, but *wrong*). After the revert, Imran can resubmit the patch, with *functional* CC's, and then we can discuss it. In general, it is fine for one maintainer to push a series that touches multiple top-level packages. However, that maintainer *MUST* make sure that each patch has sufficient "M" reviews, and he/she is responsible for picking up the feedback tags for *all* patches from the list. Come on now, guys -- have you really known me to be a person that *silently ignores* an OvmfPkg patch for more than a month? No automated out-of-office reply, no "please give me some time to review" reply, just silence? And even if I missed a patch like that, don't you think a maintainer deserves a ping first? ... Why are we, as a community, *still* failing at this process? Laszlo > diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32.dsc > index 578fc6c98ec8..fb5944aa6945 100644 > --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32.dsc > +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32.dsc > @@ -628,6 +628,7 @@ [Components] > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha256/HashInstanceLibSha256.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha384/HashInstanceLibSha384.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha512/HashInstanceLibSha512.inf > + NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSm3/HashInstanceLibSm3.inf > } > !if $(TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE) == TRUE > SecurityPkg/Tcg/Tcg2Config/Tcg2ConfigDxe.inf > @@ -914,5 +915,6 @@ [Components] > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha256/HashInstanceLibSha256.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha384/HashInstanceLibSha384.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha512/HashInstanceLibSha512.inf > + NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSm3/HashInstanceLibSm3.inf > } > !endif > diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc > index eade8f62d3de..64c231f735c2 100644 > --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc > +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgIa32X64.dsc > @@ -636,6 +636,7 @@ [Components.IA32] > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha256/HashInstanceLibSha256.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha384/HashInstanceLibSha384.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha512/HashInstanceLibSha512.inf > + NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSm3/HashInstanceLibSm3.inf > } > !if $(TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE) == TRUE > SecurityPkg/Tcg/Tcg2Config/Tcg2ConfigDxe.inf > @@ -924,5 +925,6 @@ [Components.X64] > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha256/HashInstanceLibSha256.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha384/HashInstanceLibSha384.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha512/HashInstanceLibSha512.inf > + NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSm3/HashInstanceLibSm3.inf > } > !endif > diff --git a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc > index 733a4c9d8a43..7e46d401a36f 100644 > --- a/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc > +++ b/OvmfPkg/OvmfPkgX64.dsc > @@ -635,6 +635,7 @@ [Components] > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha256/HashInstanceLibSha256.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha384/HashInstanceLibSha384.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha512/HashInstanceLibSha512.inf > + NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSm3/HashInstanceLibSm3.inf > } > !if $(TPM2_CONFIG_ENABLE) == TRUE > SecurityPkg/Tcg/Tcg2Config/Tcg2ConfigDxe.inf > @@ -922,5 +923,6 @@ [Components] > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha256/HashInstanceLibSha256.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha384/HashInstanceLibSha384.inf > > NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSha512/HashInstanceLibSha512.inf > + NULL|SecurityPkg/Library/HashInstanceLibSm3/HashInstanceLibSm3.inf > } > !endif > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43228): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/43228 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/31826564/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-