linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix an invalid condition in tpm_common

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: <67b3e631-f31f-f5dc-f468-09f8c3afa9f3@gmx.de>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 09:06:30 +0200
From:   Jonas Witschel <diabonas@....de>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@...p-os.org>,
        Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>, grawity@...il.com,
        James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix an invalid condition in tpm_common_poll

On 2019-04-24 02:43, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:54:47PM +0200, Jonas Witschel wrote:
>> On 2019-04-09 15:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 02:01:38PM +0200, Thibaut Sautereau wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> What's the status of this patch now? It's needed in linux-5.0.y as TPM
>>>> 2.0 support is currently broken with those stable kernels without this
>>>> commit.
>>>
>>> part of a PR.
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20190329115544.GA27351@linux.intel.com/
>>>
>>
>> It appears that the final version of the patch that was merged to
>> Linus's tree [1] does not include the "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" tag.
>> If I understand correctly, this means that the patch will not be
>> automatically included in the -stable tree without further action. Is
>> there a specific reason not to apply this patch to 5.0.x, or did the tag
>> just get lost in the merge process?
> 
> Good catch; I see that Jarkko had the same comment on v3 but v4 ended up
> being without the -stable tag without any explanation. I've queued this
> for 5.0, it doesn't seem relevant for older branches.

Thank you! Correct, the regression only affects 5.0.

Regards,
Jonas



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)