On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:31:36PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Thu Jan 31 19, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jarkko Sakkinen > > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I'll try it first thing when I wake up tomorrow (11PM in Finland ATM). > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Appreciate for taking time on this. > > > > Hey, it was my commit that broke it for you. Even if it happened to > > work before, and only did so by pure luck, it was a functional > > regression. > > > > I get very upset when other developers don't step up when *their* > > changes break something, and I don't consider "it shouldn't have > > worked in the first place" to be a valid excuse. You broke it, you'd > > better fix it. > > > > So I had better fix my own mess too, in order to not look too hypocritical. > > > > And I was very aware that hardcoding the memcpy_*io() access patterns > > might break something. I just _hoped_ it wouldn't, because we actually > > ended up going back to the very original access patterns (but it was > > from a long long time ago). > > > > In fact, while it's slightly annoying, in many ways it's actually good > > that we found breakage, and could pinpoint exactly *why* it broke. > > That does validate the whole "we shouldn't just depend on the random > > implementation detail of 'memcpy()'" argument. > > > > So I'll wait to hear back whether that patch fixes things for you, but > > I _think_ it will, and we'll be better off in the long range with this > > whole thing. > > > > Linus > > I just did a quick test here of booting and running a couple commands > (tpm2_getcap, tpm2_pcrlist), and the patch seems to work for me. I was > seeing the error during tpm_crb initialization without the patch. Works for me too. Just submitted tpm_crb level fix too for the reasons explained in accompanied commit message. Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> /Jarkko
