linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs

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: <ZA0xf4N9taBe3HKj@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun, 12 Mar 2023 03:57:19 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        reach622@...lcuk.com, Bell <1138267643@...com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 03:55:03AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 02:49:17AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On 3/12/23, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 03:35:08AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 06:43:47PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >> > [adding Linux to the list of recipients]
> > >> >
> > >> > On 08.03.23 10:42, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> > >> > > Hi, Thorsten here, the Linux kernel's regression tracker. Top-posting
> > >> > > for once, to make this easily accessible to everyone.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jarkko, thx for reviewing and picking below fix up. Are you planning
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > send this to Linus anytime soon, now that the patch was a few days in
> > >> > > next? It would be good to get this 6.1 regression finally fixed, it
> > >> > > already took way longer then the time frame
> > >> > > Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst outlines for a case
> > >> > > like
> > >> > > this. But well, that's how it is sometimes...
> > >> >
> > >> > Linus, would you consider picking this fix up directly from here or
> > >> > from
> > >> > linux-next (8699d5244e37)? It's been in the latter for 9 days now
> > >> > afaics. And the issue seems to bug more than just one or two users, so
> > >> > it IMHO would be good to get this finally resolved.
> > >> >
> > >> > Jarkko didn't reply to my inquiry, guess something else keeps him busy.
> > >>
> > >> That's a bit arrogant. You emailed only 4 days ago.
> > >>
> > >> I'm open to do PR for rc3 with the fix, if it cannot wait to v6.4 pr.
> > >
> > > If this is about slow response with kernel bugzilla: it is not *enforced*
> > > part of the process. If it was, I would use it. Since it isn't, I don't
> > > really want to add any extra weight to my workflow.
> > >
> > > It's not only extra time but also it is not documented how exactly and in
> > > detail you would use it. For email we have all that documented. And when
> > > you don't have guidelines, then it is too flakky to use properly.
> > 
> > No interest in wading into a process argument. But if you're able to
> > send this for rc3, please please do so. Users keep getting hit by
> > this, some email me directly, and I keep replying saying the fix
> > should be released any day now. So let's make that happen.
> 
> Sure, that shouldn't be a problem. I'll queue this for rc3.

Considering "the process argument": I'm just saying that we have user
facing service that is not properly documented to the maintainers, that's
all.

BR, Jarkko