On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 07:34:39AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 07:26:38AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 10:28:03AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Wed, 2026-03-18 at 10:36 -0700, Chris Fenner wrote: > > > > Apologies if my long message derailed this discussion. I meant to > > > > support Mimi's concern here and project a future vision where > > > > TCG_TPM2_HMAC doesn't conflict with other features. > > > > > > > > More concisely, I think that: > > > > > > > > > tpm2_get_random() is costly when TCG_TPM2_HMAC is enabled > > > > > > > > is not a compelling argument for removing TPM as an RNG source, > > > > because TCG_TPM2_HMAC is known to have poor performance already > > > > anyway. > > > > > > Agreed. Thanks, Chris! FYI, we raised concerns about IMA performance > > > with the > > > TPM HMAC and encrypted feature while it was being developed. James had > > > some > > > ideas, at the time, as to how to resolve the performance issue for IMA. > > > Yet it > > > was upstreamed without those changes and with CONFIG_TCG_TPM2_HMAC > > > enabled by > > > default on x86 systems. > > > > > > Jarkko has queued this patch in the "queue" branch, without indicating > > > whether > > > it will eventually be upstreamed or not. > > > > Yes and there's been multiple months of time to comment this and I > > backed up the patch set there, which is not same as applying it. > > There's quite many other patches in that patch set also in the queue > branch. This was largeriy past life for me when these comments came. > Really don't understand what is suddenly going on tnh and for one > not that interesting patch.
Underlined: not a queue to anywhere. I can rename it something else, did not really think about the name when I created the branch. BR, Jarkkko
