Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:00:58 +0300 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix multiple race conditions in tpm_ppi.c |
| |
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 01:05:33PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:02:15PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:42:51PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > Personally, I'd sequence this commit right after your 'tpm: two-phase > > > > chip management functions' commit because it makes it much saner (no > > > > half step toward the new functions). I assume this is a theoretical > > > > problem? Or do you have a two TPM system? > > > > > > This has realized in Intel NUCs where there is PTT and dTPM module. Even > > > when PTT is selected there is still ACPI device for dTPM so three is a > > > race condition and PPI is unusable. I think that it's not good that code is > > > not robust enough to deal with this. > > > > Oh OK, you should probably explain in the commit log that this is a > > bug fix that impacts real hardware, that qualifies it for the -stable > > tree. > > > > Assuming two-phase commit is nearly ready to go, I'd still sequence > > this fix after two-phase for mainline and then use this patch as-is > > for the 3.17 -stable backport of the mainline commit. > > OK, makes sense. I'll try to get this done tonight.
I propose that the current fix would be actually taken into 3.18 as it is and bigger changes would be introduced for 3.19 as the merge window is closed. I do not think it would be wise at this point to make larger structural changes.
I could however update the commit message and copyright platter (should have 2012-2014, not just 2014). What do you think? Peter?
/Jarkko
|  |