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