[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191002153123.wcguist4okoxckis@cantor>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:31:23 -0700
From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-stabley@...r.kernel.org,
Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@...gle.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
"open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tpm: Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence to prevent future
TPM operations
On Wed Oct 02 19, Sasha Levin wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:14:44PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>From: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@...gle.com>
>>>
>>>commit db4d8cb9c9f2af71c4d087817160d866ed572cc9 upstream
>>>
>>>TPM 2.0 Shutdown involve sending TPM2_Shutdown to TPM chip and disabling
>>>future TPM operations. TPM 1.2 behavior was different, future TPM
>>>operations weren't disabled, causing rare issues. This patch ensures
>>>that future TPM operations are disabled.
>>>
>>>Fixes: d1bd4a792d39 ("tpm: Issue a TPM2_Shutdown for TPM2 devices.")
>>>Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>Signed-off-by: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@...gle.com>
>>>[dianders: resolved merge conflicts with mainline]
>>>Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
>>>Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
>>>Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
>>>---
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c | 5 +++--
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>>What kernel version(s) is this for?
>
>It would go to 4.19, we've recently reverted an incorrect backport of
>this patch.
>
>Jarkko, why is this patch 3/3? We haven't seen the first two on the
>mailing list, do we need anything besides this patch?
>
>--
>Thanks,
>Sasha
It looks like there was a problem mailing the earlier patchset, and patches 1 and 2
weren't cc'd to stable, but patch 3 was.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists