Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933398AbaJVNBt (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:01:49 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:60614 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933173AbaJVNBs (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:01:48 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,768,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="593735638" Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:00:58 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe , peter.huewe@gmx.de Cc: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Ashley Lai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix multiple race conditions in tpm_ppi.c Message-ID: <20141022130058.GA6698@intel.com> References: <1413879761-25392-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20141021165551.GA28382@obsidianresearch.com> <20141021204251.GA5438@intel.com> <20141021210215.GA31755@obsidianresearch.com> <20141022100533.GA31487@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141022100533.GA31487@intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/