Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:34:57 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/12] tpm-buf: add handling for TPM2B types
Message-ID: <20190925123457.GB24028@linux.intel.com>
References: <1568031408.6613.29.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <1568031515.6613.31.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20190920141826.GC9578@linux.intel.com>
 <1569323560.24519.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20190925123401.GA24028@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190925123401.GA24028@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 03:34:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 07:12:40AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > I thought about that.  The main problem is that most of the
> > construct/append functions use the header, and these are the functions
> > most useful to the TPM2B operation.
> > 
> > The other thing that argues against this is that the TPM2B case would
> > save nothing if we eliminated the header, because we allocate a page
> > for all the data regardless.
> 
> It would be way more clean. There is absolutely nothing TPM2B specific.

Given the recent regression I'm detaching allocation from tpm_buf and
make it purely a decorator (sending patch today).

/Jarkko