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:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:42:56 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Cc:     zohar@linux.ibm.com, david.safford@ge.com, monty.wiseman@ge.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] tpm: pass an array of tpm_bank_list structures to
 tpm_pcr_extend()
Message-ID: <20181119144256.GI8755@linux.intel.com>
References: <20181114153108.12907-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
 <20181114153108.12907-8-roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
 <20181116150352.GA3612@linux.intel.com>
 <9c534ed1-7832-7a3b-3e69-5fcc25c565cc@huawei.com>
 <20181118072901.GB5897@linux.intel.com>
 <5dd9fc97-2fb8-0e17-9ae0-88ce8db83903@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5dd9fc97-2fb8-0e17-9ae0-88ce8db83903@huawei.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 Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 09:22:32AM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On 11/18/2018 8:29 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:55:36PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > I understood from a previous email that you want to include all API
> > > changes for crypto agility in the same patch set.
> > 
> > Hmm.. maybe there is some misunderstading. Can you point me to the
> > comment? Thanks.
> 
> ---
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:24:46PM +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > Should I include the patch for tpm_pcr_extend() in this patch set, even
> > if the set fixes the digest size issue?
> 
> Just add some note to the cover letter. Makes sense here to have a
> prequel patch for that because otherwise the implementation will be
> a bit messy and half-baked.

Ok, I guess it is OK as long as IMA (namely Mimi) gives that patch
reviewed-by. It is not a huge change.

PS. I noticed that earlier patches have postfixes like '_struct' and
'_ptr' for function arguments. Can you remove them in the next version?

/Jarkko