linux-kernel - Re: Regression in suspend-to-ram (TPM related) with 5.1-rc1 (BISECTED)

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: <31f75727-d2c3-1afa-ab14-1dbc62a6315b@ginzinger.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 07:53:34 +0200
From:   Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@...zinger.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paul Zimmerman <pauldzim@...il.com>
CC:     Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression in suspend-to-ram (TPM related) with 5.1-rc1 (BISECTED)

On 21.03.19 14:41, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 04:03:37PM -0700, Paul Zimmerman wrote:
>> So I bisected this down to:
>>
>> # first bad commit: [a3fbfae82b4cb3ff9928e29f34c64d0507cad874] tpm:
>> take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()
>>
>> but this doesn't revert cleanly on Linus' HEAD. Anyone have an idea what
>> could be wrong here?
> 
> Sorry I've been in flu for the early week. I spotted the bug
> immediately.  When I did these patches I did not have TPM 1.x at my
> hand. I used fTPM 2.0 and dTPM 2.0. Stefan did TPM 1.x testing but I
> probably forgot to ask him to try out suspend.
> 
> Anyway, the bug is obvious and I'll send you a patch to try out.
> Thanks a lot for bisecting this!
> 
> /Jarkko
> 


Hi,

Any news on this? It seems not to be fixed in -rc4. I'd happily test a
patch too.

thanks a lot,

                            martin

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (3616 bytes)