linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] tpmdd changes for v6.6-rc2

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: <CVI1XE98FLQN.1S24GU1DJ89WY@suppilovahvero>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 22:54:35 +0300
From:   "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@....de>,
        "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "Mimi Zohar" <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Justin M . Forbes" <jforbes@...oraproject.org>,
        <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] tpmdd changes for v6.6-rc2

On Wed Sep 13, 2023 at 10:45 PM EEST, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 12:32, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I'll make something more reasonable.
>
> Well, I took the pull already, just saying "tpm fix".
>
> I assume the only thing the typo actually causes is printk's with a
> typo in it. Maybe some sysfs name will be wrong?
>
> That's the kind of information I would have _liked_ to see in the
> merge message, but I didn't then delve into just where the class names
> might actually be used.
>
>                Linus

Thanks for pointing this out because I also overlooked the whole fix,
and based my conclusions just "git describe --contains", which pointed
to my previous signed tag.

I actually do QA (both x86 and aarch64 and slowly setting up also riscv)
to my tree, and I did not understand how this could have leaked into a
PR since TPM2 kselftest would have catched that.

The original commit must have gone through some other maintainer tree
since I do not see in any of my PR's. Anyway, I'll document next time
better my PR because apparently not doing that can lead to toally false
conclusions :-)

Thanks for picking it up anyway.

BR, Jarkko