From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753247AbcBZDjH (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:39:07 -0500 Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:38557 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751338AbcBZDjG (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:39:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 14:38:52 +1100 (AEDT) From: James Morris To: Jerry Snitselaar cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Wilck@intel.com Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [GIT PULL] remaining tpmdd fixes for Linux 4.5 In-Reply-To: <20160225173044.gcr2j65ihv6cevzm@cantor.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20160220081705.GA12981@intel.com> <20160222145023.GA28365@intel.com> <20160225173044.gcr2j65ihv6cevzm@cantor.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Mon Feb 22 16, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:56:53PM +1100, James Morris wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > Hi James, > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for the late pull request for 4.5. The reason for this was > > > > the latency in my previous one. I picked with care the absolutely > > > > critical fixes so that we can make a sound tpmdd release. > > > > > > > > I really hope you can still pick these as one of them is absolutely > > > > critical to get authorization policy sealing API right (kernel keeps > > > > it finger out of user space created objects). > > > > > > Pushed to next for more testing and review. > > > > > > This really is getting too late in the development cycle for so many > > > fixes. It means the code was not ready to be merged in the first place. > > > >I fully agree what you're saying. I'll learn the lesson here and take > >factors more conservative attitude from now on. No excuses. I'm sorry > >about this. > > > >Partly the reason for recent increase in regressions has been > >increased real-world use of TPM2 and thus issues have started to pop > >up that's a lame excuse anyway. > > > > Would it be worthwhile to have a tpm branch that gets pulled by -next > directly so changes will have already been going through the paces in > -next prior to the pull reuqest to James? That would be useful, some other subsystems do that. -- James Morris