[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180426174924.GD28091@kroah.com>
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