Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-100476-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:52:57 +0200
Message-Id: <CZRW4ZZEH3BK.80W6O7YT5HH5@kernel.org>
Cc: <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
 <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 <rnsastry@linux.ibm.com>, <peterhuewe@gmx.de>, <viparash@in.ibm.com>,
 <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <jsnitsel@redhat.com>, "Nayna Jain"
 <nayna@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: tpm: Add linux,sml-log to
 ibm,vtpm.yaml
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Lukas Wunner" <lukas@wunner.de>, "Stefan Berger"
 <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20240311132030.1103122-1-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
 <20240311132030.1103122-3-stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
 <ZfA4TZspY7oOQ4vz@wunner.de>
In-Reply-To: <ZfA4TZspY7oOQ4vz@wunner.de>

On Tue Mar 12, 2024 at 1:11 PM EET, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 09:20:29AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > Add linux,sml-log, which carries the firmware TPM log in a uint8-array,=
 to
> > the properties. Either this property is required or both linux,sml-base=
 and
> > linux,sml-size are required. Add a test case for verification.
> >=20
> > Fixes: 82003e0487fb ("Documentation: tpm: add the IBM Virtual TPM devic=
e tree binding documentation")
>
> The Fixes tag is confusing.  The patch won't even apply cleanly to the
> v4.10 commit referenced here as the conversion to yaml happened only
> recently with v6.8.
>
> Why is the Fixes tag necessary in the first place?  Same question for
> the other patches in the series.  This looks like feature work rather
> than a fix.  Not sure whether it satisfies the "obviously correct"
> rule per Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.

I'm not yet sure whether these are bug fixes and or improvements because
I did not fully understand the scenario where TPM corrupts the event log
so that part reminds to be seen.

Probably once I fully understand what is going on, it is possible to
argue on that.

BR, Jarkko