On Mon, 2020-10-05 at 18:34 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 11:09:21AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > The TPM TIS specification says the TPM signals the acquisition of > > locality when the TMP_ACCESS_REQUEST_USE bit goes to one *and* the > > TPM_ACCESS_REQUEST_USE bit goes to zero. Currently we only check > > the > > Put a reference to the section. > > I'm *guessing* that the spec is > > https://trustedcomputinggroup.org/resource/pc-client-work-group-pc-client-specific-tpm-interface-specification-tis > > Please have this and also location in this spec. I can, but the TCG reorganizes its website every few months, so no URLs like that are permanent. > > former not the latter, so check both. Adding the check on > > TPM_ACCESS_REQUEST_USE should fix the case where the locality is > > re-requested before the TPM has released it. In this case the > > locality may get released briefly before it is reacquired, which > > causes all sorts of problems. However, with the added check, > > TPM_ACCESS_REQUEST_USE should remain 1 until the second request for > > the locality is granted. > > The description is really good and understandable otherwise. > > For me it is not obvious at all, why this is missing a fixes > tag? It's been there ever since the initial commit: commit 27084efee0c3dc0eb15b5ed750aa9f1adb3983c3 Author: Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat Apr 22 02:38:03 2006 -0700 [PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley < > > James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > v2: added this patch > > Use the cover letter for the changelog. I'm afraid that I might > miss these otherwise. Submitting patches actually recommends doing this ... I think we want to keep to standard kernel process, but I can gather them in the cover letter as well. James
