[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHSjozC4N7ShgCqNPbvycrhe17e3NKVik92Gy0vAHqBvBm-oAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:24:30 -0700
From: Josh Zimmerman <joshz@...gle.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class".
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
>> Thanks, Greg.
>>
>> Greg, Jarkko: Do either of you you have any objections to me
>> backporting these changes to 4.4 and 4.9? I'd like to make sure that
>> at least the couple most recent LTS kernels have this patch.
>
> Why? What bug does this solve?
If a TPM2 device has power removed without a TPM2_Shutdown being
issued, it will increment its "dictionary attack" counter. After that
counter reaches a certain value, the TPM2 device will lock the user
out. Adding the shutdown callback allows the TPM kernel driver to send
TPM2_Shutdown to all TPM2 devices.
> If it meets the rules of
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt (or whereever that file moved to),
> that's fine with me.
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst, right? To comply with
option 1 referred to there (Adding the appropriate "Cc:" to the
description), should I send a new patch email or just reply to this
one and quote the relevant part? (I don't believe the document
specifies.)
Thanks,
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists