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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:49:24 +0200 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org, Azhar Shaikh <azhar.shaikh@...el.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, "open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:53:32AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:06 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 01:44:20PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > "tpm: add retry logic" caused merge conflicts so I picked couple of > > > other fixes in order to get it apply cleanly. > > > > Are these only needed in 4.16.y? Nothing earlier? > > The retry one (tpm: add retry logic) could go back as far as you can, > but the bug it causes is rarely seen: mostly it's a failure of the > kernel trusted keys due to a tpm retry being interpreted as a fatal > error. The number of users we have for kernel trusted keys seems to be > pretty small ... > > I'd say if the backport works as is, go for it, but if we get a patch > apply failure, it's probably not worth trying to work out how to modify > the patch again until someone actually complains about the problem. They seem to all work for 4.14.y and 4.16.y, so now queued up, thanks. greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists