On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 04:49:34PM +0800, Yuqi Xu wrote: > Hi Jarkko, > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2026 at 06:30:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > OK, so now that I was writing summary of TPM pull request changes, I > > came into conclusion that this is not a bug fix, unless you can show > > from TCG specifications that this is possible spec allowed behaviour. > > I cannot. Part 1 identifies a PCR bank by its hash algorithm, so one > hash is one bank. In the TCG reference implementation, TPM2_PCR_Allocate > keeps only the last selection when the same hash appears more than once, > and TPM2_GetCapability(TPM_CAP_PCRS) returns that allocation. A > conformant TPM will not report a duplicate. > > > So I can keep the commit but would remove fixes and bug related tags > > from this. It is essentially hardening and safety measure but not a > > bug fix. > > Please do. Drop Fixes:, Cc: stable, Reported-by:, and Closes:. The code > change can stay as hardening. > > > Do you have something to say that I might have missed? > > Only that the commit is not on the current master after the rebase. I > can send a v3 without those tags if that is easier than reapplying it > yourself.
Thanks for quick reaction. I can still get it to the pull request. This was just a question of taxonomy. I think it is otherwise useful to have this validation in place (i.e. not disregarding the change overall). > > Thanks, > Yuqi > Br, Jarkko
