linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class".

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:   Thu, 25 May 2017 18:41:18 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Josh Zimmerman <joshz@...gle.com>
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 09:24:30AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> 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.

Is all of that in the tpm patch description?  If so, great, if not,
please add it.

> > 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.)

You (or who ever applies these patches) needs to add the cc: stable tag
to them.  I suggest resend these, as a patch series, with that in it, so
that it all makes more sense and the tpm maintainer has an easy job of
it.

thanks,

greg k-h