linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [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:	Sun, 6 Dec 2015 06:15:44 +0200
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module
 parameter

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 06:02:26AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:19:32AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 08:00:42AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > 
> > > I guess it'd be more realiable. In my NUC the current fix works and the
> > > people who tested it. If you supply me a fix that changes it to use that
> > > I can test it and this will give also coverage to the people who tested
> > > my original fix.
> > 
> > Here is the updated series:
> > 
> > https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/commits/for-jarkko
> > 
> > What does your dmesg say?
> > 
> > It really isn't OK to hardwire an address for acpi devices, so I've
> > added something like this. Just completely guessing that control_pa is
> > where the BIOS is hiding the base address. Maybe it is cca->cmd_pa ?
> 
> I'm a bit confused about the discussion because Martin replied that
> tpm_tis used to get the address range before applying this series.
> 
> And pnp_driver in the backend for TPM 1.x devices grabs the address
> range from DSDT.

You can completely ignore this question. I saw Martins reply with a fix for
"tpm_tis: Use devm_ioremap_resource" that you should squash into that
change. So it's proved that TPM ACPI device objects do not always have a
memory resource. Good.

I think these changes are important but there's no really reason to rush
them. Maybe, since there's been a lot of commentary, it'd be better to
resubmit a new revision of the series to the mailing list so that it can
be peer-reviewed once again.

> /Jarkko

/Jarkko
--
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/