On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 13:37 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 09:37 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 21:51 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > As has been seen recently, binding the buffer allocation and
> > > tpm_buf
> > > together is sometimes far from optimal.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I must have missed the
> > discussion.
>
> Refer to e13cd21ffd50 ("tpm: Wrap the buffer from the caller to
> tpm_buf in tpm_send()") for the details.
Yes, I get that, but to my mind that calls for moving the
tpm_init/destroy_buf into the callers of tpm_send (which, for the most
part, already exist), which means there's no need to separate the buf
and data lifetimes.
James
