Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1343350 > unrolled thread

Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5 Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com> - 2016-02-25 18:40 +0100
    Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5 James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - 2016-02-26 04:40 +0100
      Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5 Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-02-26 10:50 +0100

#1343350 — Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5

On Mon Feb 22 16, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:56:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>
>> > Hi James,
>> >
>> > I'm sorry for the late pull request for 4.5. The reason for this was
>> > the latency in my previous one. I picked with care the absolutely
>> > critical fixes so that we can make a sound tpmdd release.
>> >
>> > I really hope you can still pick these as one of them is absolutely
>> > critical to get authorization policy sealing API right (kernel keeps
>> > it finger out of user space created objects).
>>
>> Pushed to next for more testing and review.
>>
>> This really is getting too late in the development cycle for so many
>> fixes.  It means the code was not ready to be merged in the first place.
>
>I fully agree what you're saying. I'll learn the lesson here and take
>factors more conservative attitude from now on. No excuses. I'm sorry
>about this.
>
>Partly the reason for recent increase in regressions has been
>increased real-world use of TPM2 and thus issues have started to pop
>up that's a lame excuse anyway.
>

Would it be worthwhile to have a tpm branch that gets pulled by -next
directly so changes will have already been going through the paces in
-next prior to the pull reuqest to James?

snits

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1343768

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:

> On Mon Feb 22 16, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:56:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi James,
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry for the late pull request for 4.5. The reason for this was
> > > > the latency in my previous one. I picked with care the absolutely
> > > > critical fixes so that we can make a sound tpmdd release.
> > > >
> > > > I really hope you can still pick these as one of them is absolutely
> > > > critical to get authorization policy sealing API right (kernel keeps
> > > > it finger out of user space created objects).
> > >
> > > Pushed to next for more testing and review.
> > >
> > > This really is getting too late in the development cycle for so many
> > > fixes.  It means the code was not ready to be merged in the first place.
> >
> >I fully agree what you're saying. I'll learn the lesson here and take
> >factors more conservative attitude from now on. No excuses. I'm sorry
> >about this.
> >
> >Partly the reason for recent increase in regressions has been
> >increased real-world use of TPM2 and thus issues have started to pop
> >up that's a lame excuse anyway.
> >
> 
> Would it be worthwhile to have a tpm branch that gets pulled by -next
> directly so changes will have already been going through the paces in
> -next prior to the pull reuqest to James?

That would be useful, some other subsystems do that.



-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1343962

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 02:38:52PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> 
> > On Mon Feb 22 16, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:56:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi James,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry for the late pull request for 4.5. The reason for this was
> > > > > the latency in my previous one. I picked with care the absolutely
> > > > > critical fixes so that we can make a sound tpmdd release.
> > > > >
> > > > > I really hope you can still pick these as one of them is absolutely
> > > > > critical to get authorization policy sealing API right (kernel keeps
> > > > > it finger out of user space created objects).
> > > >
> > > > Pushed to next for more testing and review.
> > > >
> > > > This really is getting too late in the development cycle for so many
> > > > fixes.  It means the code was not ready to be merged in the first place.
> > >
> > >I fully agree what you're saying. I'll learn the lesson here and take
> > >factors more conservative attitude from now on. No excuses. I'm sorry
> > >about this.
> > >
> > >Partly the reason for recent increase in regressions has been
> > >increased real-world use of TPM2 and thus issues have started to pop
> > >up that's a lame excuse anyway.
> > >
> > 
> > Would it be worthwhile to have a tpm branch that gets pulled by -next
> > directly so changes will have already been going through the paces in
> > -next prior to the pull reuqest to James?
> 
> That would be useful, some other subsystems do that.

I'll start using it.

> -- 
> James Morris
> <jmorris@namei.org>

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web