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]

Message-ID: <1EB6498E-9E04-449A-8913-0BDFB27BA04D@gmx.de>
Date:	Wed, 02 Dec 2015 01:02:13 -0800
From:	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....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>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter



Am 2. Dezember 2015 00:14:23 PST, schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>:
>On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 05:15:14PM -0800, Peter Huewe wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Am 1. Dezember 2015 14:22:23 PST, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe
><jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>:
>> >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?
>> 
>> I'm not 100% sure if force=1 is broken in 4.3 as well, as I oops when
>> I have my tpm_crb loaded and then call modprobe tpm_tis force=1
>> Peter
>
>It'd have to be a different regression because v4.3 does not contain
>the
>change that breaks this in v4.4. You had a NUC with discrete TPM
>module,
>am I remembering right?
>
Nope, intel fw tpm2.0 in my acer laptop.
No nucs here
>/Jarkko

-- 
Sent from my mobile
--
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/