On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 06:35:56AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 06:31:38AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 04:46:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:43:13PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:35:33PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > Careful with this, you can't backport this to any kernels that don't > > > > > > have the sysfs ops locking changes or they will crash in sysfs code. > > > > > > > > > > Oops, I was way too fast! Thanks Jason. > > > > > > > > Hmm... hold on a second. > > > > > > > > How would the crash realize? I mean this is at the point when user space > > > > should not be active. > > > > > > Not strictly, AFAIK > > > > > > > Secondly, why the crash would not realize with > > > > TPM2? The only thing the fix is doing is to do the same thing with TPM1 > > > > essentially. > > > > > > TPM2 doesn't use the unlocked sysfs path > > > > Gah, sorry :-) I should have known that. > > > > I can go through the patches needed when I come back from my leave after > > two weeks. > > It might require a number of patches but maybe it makes also overally sense > to fix the racy sysfs code in stable kernels. The sysfs isn't racy, it justs used a different locking scheme Jason
