The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as title
heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree entry. Demote it
to section heading as appropriate.

Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst b/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
index 4f633f2510336b..bf73bbe66db2fa 100644
--- a/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
+++ b/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ protect key sealing and parameter decryption to protect key unsealing
 and random number generation.
 
 Null Primary Key Certification in Userspace
-===========================================
+-------------------------------------------
 
 Every TPM comes shipped with a couple of X.509 certificates for the
 primary endorsement key.  This document assumes that the Elliptic

base-commit: 27600b51fbc8b9a4eba18c8d88d7edb146605f3f
-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 08:13:12PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as title
> heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree entry. Demote it
> to section heading as appropriate.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst b/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
> index 4f633f2510336b..bf73bbe66db2fa 100644
> --- a/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ protect key sealing and parameter decryption to protect key unsealing
>  and random number generation.
>  
>  Null Primary Key Certification in Userspace
> -===========================================
> +-------------------------------------------
>  
>  Every TPM comes shipped with a couple of X.509 certificates for the
>  primary endorsement key.  This document assumes that the Elliptic
> 
> base-commit: 27600b51fbc8b9a4eba18c8d88d7edb146605f3f
> -- 
> An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
> 

Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>

Should I pick this?

BR, Jarkko

On 11/9/25 11:50, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 08:13:12PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as title
>> heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree entry. Demote it
>> to section heading as appropriate.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst b/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
>> index 4f633f2510336b..bf73bbe66db2fa 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/security/tpm/tpm-security.rst
>> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ protect key sealing and parameter decryption to protect key unsealing
>>   and random number generation.
>>   
>>   Null Primary Key Certification in Userspace
>> -===========================================
>> +-------------------------------------------
>>   
>>   Every TPM comes shipped with a couple of X.509 certificates for the
>>   primary endorsement key.  This document assumes that the Elliptic
>>
>> base-commit: 27600b51fbc8b9a4eba18c8d88d7edb146605f3f
>> -- 
>> An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
>>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> 
> Should I pick this?
> 

Of course!

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 20:13 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as title
> heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree entry. Demote it
> to section heading as appropriate.

It's supposed to be a separate heading.  It's explaining how to certify
your booted kernel rather than describing TPM security within the
kernel.

Regards,

James

On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 09:55:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 20:13 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as title
> > heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree entry. Demote it
> > to section heading as appropriate.
> 
> It's supposed to be a separate heading.  It's explaining how to certify
> your booted kernel rather than describing TPM security within the
> kernel.

Should I keep the whole section as-is or should I move it to separate docs?

Thanks. 

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 08:57 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 09:55:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 20:13 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as
> > > title heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree entry.
> > > Demote it to section heading as appropriate.
> > 
> > It's supposed to be a separate heading.  It's explaining how to
> > certify your booted kernel rather than describing TPM security
> > within the kernel.
> 
> Should I keep the whole section as-is or should I move it to separate
> docs?

Why might it need moving?

Regards,

James

On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 10:32:50PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 08:57 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 09:55:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 20:13 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as
> > > > title heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree entry.
> > > > Demote it to section heading as appropriate.
> > > 
> > > It's supposed to be a separate heading.  It's explaining how to
> > > certify your booted kernel rather than describing TPM security
> > > within the kernel.
> > 
> > Should I keep the whole section as-is or should I move it to separate
> > docs?
> 
> Why might it need moving?

Just to tidy up toctree then...

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 20:04 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 10:32:50PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 08:57 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 09:55:08AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2025-11-04 at 20:13 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > > The last section heading in TPM security docs is formatted as
> > > > > title heading instead. As such, it shows up as TPM toctree
> > > > > entry. Demote it to section heading as appropriate.
> > > > 
> > > > It's supposed to be a separate heading.  It's explaining how to
> > > > certify your booted kernel rather than describing TPM security
> > > > within the kernel.
> > > 
> > > Should I keep the whole section as-is or should I move it to
> > > separate docs?
> > 
> > Why might it need moving?
> 
> Just to tidy up toctree then...

I'd really rather have the files in the doc tree grouped for ease (and
reminder of) maintenance.  The two headings belong together in one file
because if someone updates the doc for one, there's at least a chance
they'll notice the other might need an update as well; whereas if we do
separate files for every heading the tree becomes very fragmented and
the chance of something being missed increases.

Regards,

James

On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 11:33:39AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-11-05 at 20:04 +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > Why might it need moving?
> > 
> > Just to tidy up toctree then...
> 
> I'd really rather have the files in the doc tree grouped for ease (and
> reminder of) maintenance.  The two headings belong together in one file
> because if someone updates the doc for one, there's at least a chance
> they'll notice the other might need an update as well; whereas if we do
> separate files for every heading the tree becomes very fragmented and
> the chance of something being missed increases.
> 

OK, thanks!

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara