On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 12:00:57PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > 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. OK, that's good enough excuse :-( Let's then ignore this comment. Just would had save trouble in future if that wasn't the case. > > > 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 Then just "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" should do. > > > 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. Most of the patch sets that I encounter have the cover letter in the changelog and usually it is great for getting overall image what is happening. In section 14 of "submitting patches" there is a remark that the area just after the diffstat marker is a good place to store this kind of information. I have not find any explicit instruction for patch sets, i.e. I just trust the "majority vote". > James /Jarkko
