[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Vja80tuLkojoCbrE=vfqvD8EMnzgKiQ1SGcM-2jMGZUw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:55:18 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, "# 4.0+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, Andrey Pronin <apronin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence to prevent future TPM operations
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:43 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:35:33PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Careful with this, you can't backport this to any kernels that don't
> > > have the sysfs ops locking changes or they will crash in sysfs code.
> >
> > Oops, I was way too fast! Thanks Jason.
>
> Hmm... hold on a second.
>
> How would the crash realize? I mean this is at the point when user space
> should not be active. Secondly, why the crash would not realize with
> TPM2? The only thing the fix is doing is to do the same thing with TPM1
> essentially.
I will continue to remind that I'm pretty TPM-clueless (mostly I just
took someone else's patch and posted it), but I will note that people
on the Chrome OS team seemed concerned by the sysfs locking too.
After seeing Jason's message this morning I dug a little bit and found
<https://crbug.com/819265>
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists