Hm, strange. I see them in the archives for linux-stable@, but not in my inbox. Perhaps I forgot to Cc myself on those patches. Thanks! Josh On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:11:49AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:58:03PM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote: >> >> Backport of d1bd4a792d3961a04e6154118816b00167aad91a upstream. >> >> >> >> If a TPM2 loses power without a TPM2_Shutdown command being issued (a >> >> "disorderly reboot"), it may lose some state that has yet to be >> >> persisted to NVRam, and will increment the DA counter. After the DA >> >> counter gets sufficiently large, the TPM will lock the user out. >> >> >> >> NOTE: This only changes behavior on TPM2 devices. Since TPM1 uses sysfs, >> >> and sysfs relies on implicit locking on chip->ops, it is not safe to >> >> allow this code to run in TPM1, or to add sysfs support to TPM2, until >> >> that locking is made explicit. >> >> --- >> >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-sysfs.c | 7 +++++++ >> >> 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+) >> >> >> > >> > Again no signed-off-by :( >> >> Oops, sorry about that. >> >> Did you pull in the two cherry-picks as well? They're needed for these >> two to build and merge cleanly. >> >> I can send a v2 if you need with a corrected signed-off-by and correct >> number of patches in the cover letter. > > I should have them all now, and you should have gotten emails about > it... > > thanks, > > greg k-h