From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:42020 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755899AbeDYRxf (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:53:35 -0400 Message-ID: <1524678812.4100.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports From: James Bottomley To: Greg KH , Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, Azhar Shaikh , Jason Gunthorpe , "open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" , open list , Tomas Winkler Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:53:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180425110600.GA1996@kroah.com> References: <20180425104425.5803-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180425110600.GA1996@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. James