From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Azhar Shaikh <azhar.shaikh@intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 14:55:38 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180501115538.GE20978@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180426174924.GD28091@kroah.com>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:49:24PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:53:32AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:06 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 01:44:20PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > "tpm: add retry logic" caused merge conflicts so I picked couple of
> > > > other fixes in order to get it apply cleanly.
> > >
> > > Are these only needed in 4.16.y? Nothing earlier?
> >
> > The retry one (tpm: add retry logic) could go back as far as you can,
> > but the bug it causes is rarely seen: mostly it's a failure of the
> > kernel trusted keys due to a tpm retry being interpreted as a fatal
> > error. The number of users we have for kernel trusted keys seems to be
> > pretty small ...
> >
> > I'd say if the backport works as is, go for it, but if we get a patch
> > apply failure, it's probably not worth trying to work out how to modify
> > the patch again until someone actually complains about the problem.
>
> They seem to all work for 4.14.y and 4.16.y, so now queued up, thanks.
>
> greg k-h
+1 what James said. Thank you.
/Jarkko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Azhar Shaikh <azhar.shaikh@intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 14:55:38 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180501115538.GE20978@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180426174924.GD28091@kroah.com>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:49:24PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:53:32AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:06 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 01:44:20PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > "tpm: add retry logic" caused merge conflicts so I picked couple of
> > > > other fixes in order to get it apply cleanly.
> > >
> > > Are these only needed in 4.16.y? Nothing earlier?
> >
> > The retry one (tpm: add retry logic) could go back as far as you can,
> > but the bug it causes is rarely seen: mostly it's a failure of the
> > kernel trusted keys due to a tpm retry being interpreted as a fatal
> > error. The number of users we have for kernel trusted keys seems to be
> > pretty small ...
> >
> > I'd say if the backport works as is, go for it, but if we get a patch
> > apply failure, it's probably not worth trying to work out how to modify
> > the patch again until someone actually complains about the problem.
>
> They seem to all work for 4.14.y and 4.16.y, so now queued up, thanks.
>
> greg k-h
+1 what James said. Thank you.
/Jarkko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, Azhar Shaikh <azhar.shaikh@intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
"open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 14:55:38 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180501115538.GE20978@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180426174924.GD28091@kroah.com>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 07:49:24PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:53:32AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:06 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 01:44:20PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > "tpm: add retry logic" caused merge conflicts so I picked couple of
> > > > other fixes in order to get it apply cleanly.
> > >
> > > Are these only needed in 4.16.y?��Nothing earlier?
> >
> > The retry one (tpm: add retry logic) could go back as far as you can,
> > but the bug it causes is rarely seen: mostly it's a failure of the
> > kernel trusted keys due to a tpm retry being interpreted as a fatal
> > error. The number of users we have for kernel trusted keys seems to be
> > pretty small ...
> >
> > I'd say if the backport works as is, go for it, but if we get a patch
> > apply failure, it's probably not worth trying to work out how to modify
> > the patch again until someone actually complains about the problem.
>
> They seem to all work for 4.14.y and 4.16.y, so now queued up, thanks.
>
> greg k-h
+1 what James said. Thank you.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-01 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-25 10:44 [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-04-25 10:44 ` [PATCH 1/3] tpm: cmd_ready command can be issued only after granting locality Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-04-25 10:44 ` [PATCH 2/3] tpm: tpm-interface: fix tpm_transmit/_cmd kdoc Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-04-25 10:44 ` [PATCH 3/3] tpm: add retry logic Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-04-25 10:44 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-04-25 11:06 ` [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports Greg KH
2018-04-25 17:53 ` James Bottomley
2018-04-25 17:53 ` James Bottomley
2018-04-26 17:49 ` Greg KH
2018-04-26 17:49 ` Greg KH
2018-04-26 17:49 ` Greg KH
2018-05-01 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2018-05-01 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-05-01 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180501115538.GE20978@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=azhar.shaikh@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomas.winkler@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.