Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 23 Apr 2019 20:43:26 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To:     Jonas Witschel <diabonas@gmx.de>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Thibaut Sautereau <thibaut.sautereau@clip-os.org>,
        Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>, grawity@gmail.com,
        James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix an invalid condition in tpm_common_poll
Message-ID: <20190424004326.GX17719@sasha-vm>
References: <155371155820.17863.10580533125620125669.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <20190328123428.GF7094@linux.intel.com>
 <b29aaf62-2ea0-d6c6-32ee-44bc3fe8f03f@intel.com>
 <20190408120138.GA951@gandi.net>
 <20190409134421.GD9759@linux.intel.com>
 <e9cfa3db-42d7-4e1c-a371-2c810f911dab@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e9cfa3db-42d7-4e1c-a371-2c810f911dab@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 10:54:47PM +0200, Jonas Witschel wrote:
>On 2019-04-09 15:44, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 02:01:38PM +0200, Thibaut Sautereau wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> What's the status of this patch now? It's needed in linux-5.0.y as TPM
>>> 2.0 support is currently broken with those stable kernels without this
>>> commit.
>>
>> part of a PR.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20190329115544.GA27351@linux.intel.com/
>
>It appears that the final version of the patch that was merged to
>Linus's tree [1] does not include the "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" tag.
>If I understand correctly, this means that the patch will not be
>automatically included in the -stable tree without further action. Is
>there a specific reason not to apply this patch to 5.0.x, or did the tag
>just get lost in the merge process?

Good catch; I see that Jarkko had the same comment on v3 but v4 ended up
being without the -stable tag without any explanation. I've queued this
for 5.0, it doesn't seem relevant for older branches.

--
Thanks,
Sasha