On 8/27/2023 13:12, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Wed Aug 23, 2023 at 9:58 PM EEST, Mario Limonciello wrote:
On 8/23/2023 12:40, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Wed Aug 23, 2023 at 11:23 AM EEST, Paul Menzel wrote:
Dear Jarkko,
Thank you for your patch.
Am 23.08.23 um 01:15 schrieb Jarkko Sakkinen:
The vendor check introduced by commit 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for
all AMD fTPMs") doesn't work properly on a number of Intel fTPMs. On the
reported systems the TPM doesn't reply at bootup and returns back the
command code. This makes the TPM fail probe.
Since only Microsoft Pluton is the only known combination of AMD CPU and
fTPM from other vendor, disable hwrng otherwise. In order to make sysadmin
aware of this, print also info message to the klog.
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fixes: 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs")
Reported-by: Todd Brandt <todd.e.brandt@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217804
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Mario’s patch also had the three reporters below listed:
Reported-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
Reported-by: Ronan Pigott <ronan@xxxxxx>
Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo <rjgolo@xxxxxxxxx>
The problem here is that checkpatch throws three warnings:
WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
#19:
Reported-by: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx>
Reported-by: Ronan Pigott <ronan@xxxxxx>
WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
#20:
Reported-by: Ronan Pigott <ronan@xxxxxx>
Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo <rjgolo@xxxxxxxxx>
WARNING: Reported-by: should be immediately followed by Closes: with a URL to the report
#21:
Reported-by: Raymond Jay Golo <rjgolo@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
FWIW I observed the same checkpatch warning when I submitted my version
of the patch. I figured it's better to ignore the warning and attribute
everyone who reported the issue affected them.
OK so:
1. checkpatch.pl is part of the kernel process.
2. Bugzilla is not part of the kernel process.
Why emphasis on 1?
BR, Jarkko
The reason I submitted it this way is because of this quote from the
documentation [1].
"Check your patches with the patch style checker prior to submission
(scripts/checkpatch.pl). Note, though, that the style checker should be
viewed as a guide, not as a replacement for human judgment. If your code
looks better with a violation then its probably best left alone."
I wanted the patch to capture and attribute all those that reported it
not just the "first one". Like I said previously, it's better to have a
collection of people to ping to notify if something needs to be reverted.
[1]
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#style-check-your-changes
