[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141021210215.GA31755@obsidianresearch.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:02:15 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Ashley Lai <ashley@...leylai.com>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix multiple race conditions in
tpm_ppi.c
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:42:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Personally, I'd sequence this commit right after your 'tpm: two-phase
> > chip management functions' commit because it makes it much saner (no
> > half step toward the new functions). I assume this is a theoretical
> > problem? Or do you have a two TPM system?
>
> This has realized in Intel NUCs where there is PTT and dTPM module. Even
> when PTT is selected there is still ACPI device for dTPM so three is a
> race condition and PPI is unusable. I think that it's not good that code is
> not robust enough to deal with this.
Oh OK, you should probably explain in the commit log that this is a
bug fix that impacts real hardware, that qualifies it for the -stable
tree.
Assuming two-phase commit is nearly ready to go, I'd still sequence
this fix after two-phase for mainline and then use this patch as-is
for the 3.17 -stable backport of the mainline commit.
> Even if you forget the race condition it feels waste to lookup a handle
> that is already known.
There is no doubt that this new arrangement is much better than what
was there before!
Thanks,
Jason
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists