From: Jarkko Sakkinen Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:11:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20171025191123.4uqh6epwhak6hqp5@linux.intel.com> References: <20171023123817.18559-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20171023163139.GA17394@obsidianresearch.com> <20171024154440.3jeupmus43jcgbbz@linux.intel.com> <20171024162359.tf5xulhlhokmuxh5@linux.intel.com> <20171024182235.d7b3oajc5zcjs57v@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Stefan Berger , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Herbert Xu , "open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE IMA" , Dmitry Kasatkin , open list , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, "moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" , "open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" , "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" , James Morris , Matt Mackall , "open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE IMA" To: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:21:16PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > >> > 2. Moving struct tpm_rng to the TPM client is architecturally > >> > uacceptable. > >> > >> As there was no response to the patch there is no way to know whether > >> it is acceptable or not. > > > > I like the idea of removing the tpm rng driver as discussed in other > > emails in this thread. > > Thank you. No, thank you. I didn't first understand the big idea and only looked at the code change per se. I apologize for that. The problem that you went to solve was real and it led to a properly implemented solution. You were not late from the party. Jason's code change is derivative work of your code change. That's why his code change has also your signed-off-by. Thanks for doing awesome work :-) /Jarkko