Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932283AbdIRMi0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:38:26 -0400 Received: from mail-it0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]:50068 "EHLO mail-it0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932243AbdIRMiY (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2017 08:38:24 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCijvGnGLh+sVaC7C7+PIWfRl5/qJAEIWLpgFHvN7thUtDcRyUT+TOfvXOVtnJcxfwal+STzK43yrqGZLMry60= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170912084851.z3ednbeojawnyxk2@google.com> References: <20170911100022.7251-1-tweek@google.com> <20170911100022.7251-4-tweek@google.com> <20170911164750.GA2607@obsidianresearch.com> <20170912084851.z3ednbeojawnyxk2@google.com> From: Thiebaud Weksteen Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:38:03 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tpm: parse TPM event logs based on EFI table To: Jason Gunthorpe , Ashley Lai , Nayna Jain Cc: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel , Matt Fleming , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, peterhuewe@gmx.de, Jarkko Sakkinen , tpmdd@selhorst.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1014 Lines: 27 On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:47:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:00:22PM +0200, Thiebaud Weksteen wrote: >> >> > chip->bin_log_seqops.chip = chip; >> > - if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) >> > + >> > + if (log_version == EFI_TCG2_EVENT_LOG_FORMAT_TCG_2 || >> > + (!log_version && (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2))) >> > chip->bin_log_seqops.seqops = >> > &tpm2_binary_b_measurements_seqops; >> >> Lets have all the read_log_* versions return the postitive log_version >> and get rid of the chip->flags check here. >> >> ie Doesn't ACPI always return the TPM 1 version? > > That is my understanding. Ashley, Nayna, could you confirm the format > version expected by tpm_of? Could it be both? > I've changed the returned code for ACPI but not for DeviceTree. Without confirmation for tpm_of, I am reluctant to modify the current behaviour. >> >> Jason