On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:27:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:00:12AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 4:50 AM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:26 AM Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
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?
The patch ("Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence to prevent future TPM operations")? It's already done. It just got merge conflicts when going back to 4.19 which is why I sent the backport.
But the sysfs comment means I should not apply this backport then?
Totally confused by this long thread, sorry.
What am I supposed to do for the stable trees here?
I think the answer is to drop my backport for now and Jarkko says he'll take a fresh look at it in 2 weeks when he's back from his leave. Thus my understanding:
On mainline: fixed
On 5.2 / 5.1: you've already got this picked to stable. Good
On 4.14 / 4.19: Jarkko will look at in 2 weeks.
On 4.9 and older: I'd propose skipping unless someone is known to
need a solution here.
Thanks, that makes sense now.
greg k-h
I have not forgotten this but might have to postpone the backport after Linux Plumbers. Just have lots of stuff in my queue ATM but right after the conference I have good slot to do the backports.
/Jarkko