On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 08:20:41AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > 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"? I guess that is what we have to do then. /Jarkko
