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, 7 Oct 2019 02:32:21 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.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 v3 2/2] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm_buf
Message-ID: <20191006233221.GA15594@linux.intel.com>
References: <20191003185103.26347-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20191003185103.26347-3-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <1570207062.3563.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1570210647.5046.78.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <1570210902.3563.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20191004182434.tjwtfjzvamomybhr@cantor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191004182434.tjwtfjzvamomybhr@cantor>
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 Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 11:24:34AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Fri Oct 04 19, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 13:37 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 09:37 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 21:51 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > As has been seen recently, binding the buffer allocation and
> > > > > tpm_buf
> > > > > together is sometimes far from optimal.
> > > >
> > > > Can you elaborate on this a bit more?  I must have missed the
> > > > discussion.
> > > 
> > > Refer to e13cd21ffd50 ("tpm: Wrap the buffer from the caller to
> > > tpm_buf in tpm_send()") for the details.
> > 
> > Yes, I get that, but to my mind that calls for moving the
> > tpm_init/destroy_buf into the callers of tpm_send (which, for the most
> > part, already exist), which means there's no need to separate the buf
> > and data lifetimes.
> > 
> > James
> > 
> 
> Sumit has been working on a patchset that does this.  His patchset
> converts both the asymmetric keys and trusted keys code to using the
> tpm_buf manipulation functions.

And it is also in a shape that it can soon be merged (within
few iterations at most).

/Jarkko