Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:52:38 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Cc:     "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        "Struk, Tadeusz" <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 16/17] tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of
 tpm_transmit()
Message-ID: <20181113155238.GB4601@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181108141541.12832-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20181108141541.12832-17-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9DA18602@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20181108230700.GA8038@linux.intel.com>
 <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9DA190F4@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <20181113111204.GD10434@linux.intel.com>
 <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9DA1CC0A@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9DA1CC0A@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:58:58AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> Yes, w/o this constrain it would be okay to request locality only once, 
> we can ask tboot ask again but at the time the requirement was that locality can be taken of at any point, 
> I believe that the locality won't be granted till a single command is completed.

But then tboot could race between requesting a locality and sending
the command (like immediately after the locality has been granted).

> Anyhow still the power gating is wrong in this patch do not ignore
> that part.

I can certainly take steps back with gating. It is not a blocker for
other changes but I do need to explain it in the changelog what problem
does cause. I'm not ignoring it. I just don't understad what is wrong.

> Thanks
> Tomas

/Jarkko