Hi, On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:59 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:16:18PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 03:01:18PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > From: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > TPM 2.0 Shutdown involve sending TPM2_Shutdown to TPM chip and disabling > > > future TPM operations. TPM 1.2 behavior was different, future TPM > > > operations weren't disabled, causing rare issues. This patch ensures > > > that future TPM operations are disabled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > [dianders: resolved merge conflicts with mainline] > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Nice catch. Thank you. > > > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Applied to my master branch. I also added a fixes tag. > > Can you check that it looks legit to you? Found the patch in your tree at <http://git.infradead.org/users/jjs/linux-tpmdd.git/commit/41f15a4f02092d531fb34b42a06e9a1603a7df27>. I'm decidedly a non-expert here, mostly just wrangling a patch that someone else came up with. :-) ...but let's see... I think you're asking if the "Fixes" looks sane. I guess it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Certainly what you've tagged in "Fixes" marks the point where it would be easiest to backport this fix to. ...but I think the problem is much older than that patch. As I understand it, this problem has existed for much longer. I believe that ${SUBJECT} patch evolved from an investigation that Luigi Semenzato did back in 2013 when we got back some Chromebooks whose TPMs claimed that they had been "attacked". Said another way, I believe it is an evolution of the patch <https://crrev.com/c/57988> ("CHROMIUM: workaround for Infineon TPM broken defensive timeout"). ...so technically someone ought to want this on all old kernels. Maybe keep the "Cc: stable" but remove the "Fixes"? -Doug
