Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 5 Oct 2022 11:31:28 +0200
From:   Morten Linderud <morten@linderud.pw>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm/eventlog: Don't abort tpm_read_log on faulty ACPI
 config
Message-ID: <20221005093128.nsudft5yl32xj2gg@framework>
References: <20210920203447.4124005-1-morten@linderud.pw>
 <Yzy2STXGSBmSLhmA@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yzy2STXGSBmSLhmA@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 01:40:09AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:34:47PM +0200, Morten Linderud wrote:
> > Some vendors report faulty values in the acpi TPM2 table. This causes
> 
> s/acpi/ACPI/
> 
> > the function to abort with EIO and essentially short circuits the
> 
> s/the function/tpm_read_log()/
> 
> > tpm_read_log function as we never even attempt to read the EFI
> > configuration table for a log.
> 
> > 
> > This changes the condition to only look for a positive return value,
> > else hands over the eventlog discovery to the EFI configuration table
> > which should hopefully work better.
> 
> Please, write in imperative ("Change...").
> 
> Also exlicitly state how are you changing the check for
> tpm_read_log_acpi() in tpm_read_log().
> 
> You could *even* have a snippet how the checks change
> here for clarity.
> 
> > It's unclear to me if there is a better solution to this then just
> > failing. However, I do not see any clear reason why we can't properly
> > fallback to the EFI configuration table.
> 
> This paragraph should not be part of the commit message.
> 
> Rest of the commit message made sense can you add also fixes tag
> as this is clearly a bug fix?
> 
> Also, please remove the two spurious diff's from the commit that
> are not relevant for a stable bug fix (pr_warn() and comment
> removal).

Yo,

This is the v1 of the patch which you reviewed a year ago.
https://marc.info/?l=linux-integrity&m=163225066613340&w=2

V2 mostly fixed the commit message, but there where some more pointers. I'm
happy to submit a V3 if we can agree on all the details.

V2 review is here:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-integrity&m=165475008823837&w=2

-- 
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16