From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E153C433DF for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 22:33:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACB7208B8 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 22:33:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="ADPqEy1p"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=hansenpartnership.com header.i=@hansenpartnership.com header.b="ADPqEy1p" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2436990AbgE1WdY (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 18:33:24 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:41250 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2436867AbgE1WdX (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 18:33:23 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAFB28EE10F; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:33:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1590705200; bh=VTyQq/KBhT0N+ixGd7R8XxmuxZO1qhfTdyYZV+Q0q7Y=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ADPqEy1pN21jrENbQUjKS1nW9Qr+ZGLB8+zCF6VnqqaK50INeWAI0GwHXD81J+3+E EQSx6M8MHAF4Aa5N9q6RhyBfyFpFQVBKvfw4BbeMZ9rN5sjoPT3cZjM9m/Z/4v5ljz ieaR2YMFZJCcQ6OpqVp2/Am+LOcp4JuF2HRnpwLc= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yasy8jzLJuaj; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [153.66.254.194] (unknown [50.35.76.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98C058EE0F8; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1590705200; bh=VTyQq/KBhT0N+ixGd7R8XxmuxZO1qhfTdyYZV+Q0q7Y=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ADPqEy1pN21jrENbQUjKS1nW9Qr+ZGLB8+zCF6VnqqaK50INeWAI0GwHXD81J+3+E EQSx6M8MHAF4Aa5N9q6RhyBfyFpFQVBKvfw4BbeMZ9rN5sjoPT3cZjM9m/Z/4v5ljz ieaR2YMFZJCcQ6OpqVp2/Am+LOcp4JuF2HRnpwLc= Message-ID: <1590705198.3515.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Revert "tpm: fix invalid locking in NONBLOCKING mode" From: James Bottomley To: Alex Guzman , Jarkko Sakkinen , Mario.Limonciello@dell.com, peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca Cc: arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jeffrin@rajagiritech.edu.in Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:33:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20200526183213.20720-1-mario.limonciello@dell.com> <1590520454.11810.40.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 18:10 -0700, Alex Guzman wrote: > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 23:15 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 19:23 +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com > > wrote: > > > Thanks, I don't pretend to understand the nuances of this > > > particular code, but I was hoping that the request to revert got > > > some attention since Alex's kernel Bugzilla and message a few > > > months ago to linux integrity weren't. > > > > Removing linux-kernel from CC since this subsystem internal > > discussion. > > > > Seeing the whole thing first time today. > > > > Bugzilla is the first thing to ignore when busy. It is good as > > place holder for bugs, but all discussions should happen only in > > LKML. There's no official requirement to proactively use Bugzilla > > for anything. > > > > That said I'm happy that people put stuff there so that it gets > > logged. > > > > For follow-up's use only LKML if it is important to you. Those will > > get processed. > > > > As far as this goes, if nothing is heard from me, check that you > > put me as CC to the original email. Otherwise, I might have missed > > it (by mistake, not by purpose). > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure what point was this patch when there was > > time to wait for months without response. Why the passivity for all > > this time? > > > > /Jarkko > > > > It largely went quiet because I didn't raise the issue in the mailing > list again. I pinged back in February ( > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAJ7- > PMbujee92N1f9xVF8vtXgS49qpe7qHkeWh1Z0R-Rk-Jkaw@mail.gmail.com/) but > the conversation died out and I was content to simply use the > last working kernel version and see if the bug was resolved on its > own. I think its just a state of knowledge problem: back in February I didn't know how unusual EPERM errors are in the TPM so the issue just flew by as a "this is a curious issue with an O_NONBLOCK path" thing, but thanks to some key stuff I've been doing I now do. So this time your EPERM struck me as "that's impossible surely" which is why I dug into the code to find out where it was coming from ... and sure enough, it was impossible: it was an untranslated failure return, but at least it accidentally told me exactly what the real error was. So the upshot is you got lucky this time around ... James > I raised the issue again on the bugtracker a few days ago, leading to > this follow up here. :)