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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE41AC001E0 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 23:24:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232750AbjHIXYz (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 19:24:55 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55040 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230509AbjHIXYr (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 19:24:47 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D41526B5; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F20EA64C86; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 23:24:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AACFAC433C9; Wed, 9 Aug 2023 23:24:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="NG4x0rNu" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; s=20210105; t=1691623474; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4iT0s5K95ORG241rnNoa0zsLLZzx3uln6LKelhWD5fY=; b=NG4x0rNuVOzvYaBDxbvlqW+nSJmtO42UxA+v4zlhKATtedLw1DAExyyEjl9NpdcYpB62DH PxFPsioWcaZ/Mb/6etShlHH4Q9+nLyT8L9SGchHIQ2szNeiCSOnfju28ZJzqPS8buHtShb CGK5OiaMYUIQY1W3an2Mn0NE2iwge3g= Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id c10ff8d3 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Wed, 9 Aug 2023 23:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 01:24:32 +0200 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" To: "Limonciello, Mario" Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, jarkko@kernel.org Subject: Re: AMD fTPM patches for stable Message-ID: References: <26bcc3ca-0543-43b0-a43b-2d913505e000@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <26bcc3ca-0543-43b0-a43b-2d913505e000@amd.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 05:22:02PM -0500, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > > > On 8/9/2023 4:33 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Hey Greg, > > > > There was recently a bit of a snafoo with a maintainer taking the wrong > > version of a patch and sending that up to Linus. That patch had > > incorrect stable@ annotations and had a bug in it. That bug was fixed > > with a follow up patch. But of course the metadata couldn't be changed > > easily retroactively. > > > > So I'm emailing to ask you to backport these two patches back to 5.5: > > > > - 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs") > > - cacc6e22932f ("tpm: Add a helper for checking hwrng enabled") > > > > I know the stable@ tag says 6.1+, but the actual right tags from the > > newer versioned patch that didn't get picked are: > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.5+ > > Fixes: b006c439d58d ("hwrng: core - start hwrng kthread also for untrusted sources") > > Fixes: f1324bbc4011 ("tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs") > > Fixes: 3ef193822b25 ("tpm_crb: fix fTPM on AMD Zen+ CPUs") > > Reported-by: daniil.stas@posteo.net > > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217719 > > Reported-by: bitlord0xff@gmail.com > > Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217212 > > Reviewed-by: Jason A. Donenfeld > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello > > > > Let me know if you need any more info. > > > > Thanks, > > Jason > > So I had a quick try with the backports to see what happens. 6.1.y and > 6.4.y apply cleanly no problem. > > However 5.15.y (and presumably 5.5.y) have a variety of issues that I > think no longer make it a stable candidate. I started going down the > rabbit hole of dependencies and it's massive unless hand modifications > are done. > > Realistically the problem is most severe in 6.1.y because of > b006c439d58d. I don't know it's worth going back any further. Okay. Your (AMD's) hardware, so I'm fine deferring to your judgement. Jason