Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

On 09/01/2016 08:22 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:45:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:26:24PM +0530, Nayna wrote: >>> Thanks Jarkko for the review. I will address all your comments in my next >>> version of patches. >> >> OK maybe the

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

Jarkko Sakkinen wrote on 09/20/2016 06:04:23 AM: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:50:15AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: > >> You also fail to explain how this should work with ACPI even though > >> we know that there does not exist any kind for event log

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:50:15AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote: >> You also fail to explain how this should work with ACPI even though >> we know that there does not exist any kind for event log through ACPI >> with TPM 2.0 hardware. I.e. just by reading the commits I can obviously >

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

Jarkko Sakkinen wrote on 08/30/2016 06:16:11 AM: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:50:12AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > Existing TPM2.0 support lacks the support for eventlog securityfs file. > > This patch adds the binary_bios_measurements to TPM2.0 eventlog > >

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 04:45:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:26:24PM +0530, Nayna wrote: > > Thanks Jarkko for the review. I will address all your comments in my next > > version of patches. > > OK maybe the point I'm trying to make if you forget all the whining

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:26:24PM +0530, Nayna wrote: > Thanks Jarkko for the review. I will address all your comments in my next > version of patches. OK maybe the point I'm trying to make if you forget all the whining is that with this particular feature we have to be extremely careful because

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

Thanks Jarkko for the review. I will address all your comments in my next version of patches. Thanks & Regards, - Nayna On 08/30/2016 12:40 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:50:12AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: >> Existing TPM2.0 support lacks the support for eventlog

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 01:16:11PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:50:12AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > Existing TPM2.0 support lacks the support for eventlog securityfs file. > > This patch adds the binary_bios_measurements to TPM2.0 eventlog > > securityfs file. > >

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:50:12AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > Existing TPM2.0 support lacks the support for eventlog securityfs file. > This patch adds the binary_bios_measurements to TPM2.0 eventlog > securityfs file. This is kind of patch set that would require very elaborate description how

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 12:50:12AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > Existing TPM2.0 support lacks the support for eventlog securityfs file. > This patch adds the binary_bios_measurements to TPM2.0 eventlog > securityfs file. > > Additionally, it also includes the review feedbacks as suggested by >

[tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v3 0/7] tpm: TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs support

Existing TPM2.0 support lacks the support for eventlog securityfs file. This patch adds the binary_bios_measurements to TPM2.0 eventlog securityfs file. Additionally, it also includes the review feedbacks as suggested by Jason. Further, commit msg subject line is prefixed with tpm as was