On 2020/8/17 01:12, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2020-08-17 at 00:57 +0800, Coly Li wrote: >> On 2020/8/17 00:36, James Bottomley wrote: >>> On Sun, 2020-08-16 at 12:06 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: >>> [...] >>>> A note in this file states this: >>>> >>>> Note: When using a TPM 2.0 with a persistent key with handle >>>> 0x81000001, append 'keyhandle=0x81000001' to statements between >>>> quotes, such as "new 32 keyhandle=0x81000001". >>>> >>>> Now if someone was (still) interested in TPM 1.2 >>>> adapt the note to state that these keyhandle=... should be >>>> removed for the TPM 1.2 case. >>> >>> Actually, I also have a plan to match what userspace does and >>> simply assume a keyhandle of 40000001 (generate an EC Storage >>> Primary Key on the fly) if it's not specified, which will make the >>> TPM1.2 and 2.0 versions of this the same. Unfortunately the >>> necessary precursor patches are taking an age to get upstream. >> >> Hi James, >> >> Do you have a plan to push such patches into upstream soon? If yes >> than I may wait for your patch and withdraw this one. > > Well, as I said above it depends on not yet upstream precursor patches. > They have been pending for about a year, so I've no real idea of the > timeline.
I see. Then I will post a v2 patch only does the s/-o/-c fix, and leave others untouched. Thanks. Coly Li
