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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190903162519.7136-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20190903162519.7136-126-sashal@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190903162519.7136-126-sashal@kernel.org>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:39:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=W0YodeoOCiCv9zmv+-gswuU8U_XgrBnesE=wynTbDBiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 126/167] tpm: Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence
 to prevent future TPM operations
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "# 4.0+" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@google.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 9:28 AM Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> From: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@google.com>
>
> [ Upstream commit db4d8cb9c9f2af71c4d087817160d866ed572cc9 ]
>
> TPM 2.0 Shutdown involve sending TPM2_Shutdown to TPM chip and disabling
> future TPM operations. TPM 1.2 behavior was different, future TPM
> operations weren't disabled, causing rare issues. This patch ensures
> that future TPM operations are disabled.
>
> Fixes: d1bd4a792d39 ("tpm: Issue a TPM2_Shutdown for TPM2 devices.")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Vadim Sukhomlinov <sukhomlinov@google.com>
> [dianders: resolved merge conflicts with mainline]
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Jarkko: did you deal with the issues that came up in response to my
post?  Are you happy with this going into 4.19 stable at this point?
I notice this has your Signed-off-by so maybe?

-Doug