On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:17:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:04:37PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:39:15PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:29:19AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
From: Vadim Sukhomlinov sukhomlinov@google.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@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Vadim Sukhomlinov sukhomlinov@google.com [dianders: resolved merge conflicts with mainline] Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson dianders@chromium.org Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com This is the backport of the patch referenced above to 4.19 as was done in Chrome OS. See https://crrev.com/c/1495114 for details. It presumably applies to some older kernels. NOTE that the problem itself has existed for a long time, but continuing to backport this exact solution to super old kernels is out of scope for me. For those truly interested feel free to reference the past discussion [1].
Reason for backport: mainline has commit a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()") and commit 719b7d81f204 ("tpm: introduce tpm_chip_start() and tpm_chip_stop()") and it didn't seem like a good idea to backport 17 patches to avoid the conflict.
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.
And what commit added that?
commit 2677ca98ae377517930c183248221f69f771c921 Author: Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com Date: Sun Nov 4 11:38:27 2018 +0200
tpm: use tpm_try_get_ops() in tpm-sysfs.c.Use tpm_try_get_ops() in tpm-sysfs.c so that we can consider moving other decorations (locking, localities, power management for example) inside it. This direction can be of course taken only after other call sites for tpm_transmit() have been treated in the same way.
The last sentence suggests there are other patches needed too though..
So 5.1. So does this original patch need to go into the 5.2 and 5.1 kernels?
thanks,
greg k-h