[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191002154204.me4lzgx2l4r6zkpy@cantor>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:42:04 -0700
From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
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, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>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.
Is linux-stabley@...r.kernel.org a valid address?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists