linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:21:47 +0100
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter

Hello,

Cc += gregkh

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:11:14AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:22:23PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:33:51PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > 
> > > I went through the patches and didn't see anything that would shock me
> > > enough not to apply the patches in the current if they also work when
> > > tested *but* are these release critical for Linux v4.4?
> > > 
> > > I got a bit confused about the discussion that was going on about "where
> > > to fix the probe" crash whether or not both it should be fixed in both
> > > places.
> > 
> > I'm also confused by that..
> > 
> > It sounds like force=1 is broken in 4.4 right now - do we care? Should
> > we fix this by using Martin's patch?
> > 
> > These changes are complex enough they really shouldn't go into 4.4
> > unless absolutely necessary.
> 
> The reasons I'm asking this are:
> 
> * I'm planning to do v4.5 pull request soon.
> * If this need to be get this into v4.4, we should act fast. Given the
>   complexity of the changes I'd not recommend that unless it is a life
>   and death question.

I'd say we should repair b8b2c7d845d5 ("base/platform: assert that
dev_pm_domain callbacks are called unconditionally") for 4.4-rc$next and
live with the problem that the tpm driver had since long another
release.

The fix is already available, just some minor nitpicking regarding the
commit log has still to be resolved.
 
Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/