All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <>,
Cc: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <>,,,
	"Vlastimil Babka" <>,
	"Jan Dąbroś" <>,,,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] char: tpm: Protect tpm_pm_suspend with locks
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2022 11:25:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y4sj/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Thorsten / Linus,

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 10:32:31AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
> On 28.11.22 20:56, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> BTW, many thx for taking care of this Jason!
> > From: Jan Dabros <>
> > 
> > Currently tpm transactions are executed unconditionally in
> > tpm_pm_suspend() function, which may lead to races with other tpm
> > accessors in the system. Specifically, the hw_random tpm driver makes
> > use of tpm_get_random(), and this function is called in a loop from a
> > kthread, which means it's not frozen alongside userspace, and so can
> > race with the work done during system suspend:
> Peter, Jarkko, did you look at this patch or even applied it already to
> send it to Linus soon? Doesn't look like it from here, but maybe I
> missed something.
> Thing is: the linked regression afaics is overdue fixing (for details
> see "Prioritize work on fixing regressions" in
> ). Hence if this doesn't make any progress I'll likely have to point
> Linus to this patch and suggest to apply it directly if it looks okay
> from his perspective.

I'm very concerned about this. Jan posted the original fix a month ago,
and then it fizzled out. Then I got word of the bug last week and
revived the fix [1], while also figuring out how to reproduce it
together with the reporter. I emailed the tpm maintainers offlist to
poke them, and nobody woke up. And tomorrow is rc8 day. Given that this
patch is pretty simple, has been tested to fix an annoying regression,
and that neither of the three maintainers has popped up this week to get
things rolling, I think we should just commit this now anyway, to make
sure it gets in for rc8. This way there's still a solid week of testing.
I'm in general not a big fan of the "nuclear option" of not waiting for
out to lunch maintainers, but given that it is now December 3, it seems
like the right decision.



  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-03 10:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-28 19:56 [PATCH v3] char: tpm: Protect tpm_pm_suspend with locks Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-12-02  9:32 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-12-02  9:46   ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-12-02 10:09     ` Jan Dąbroś
2022-12-03 10:25   ` Jason A. Donenfeld [this message]
2022-12-04 17:06 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-12-04 17:10   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-12-04 19:14     ` Jason A. Donenfeld
2022-12-08  9:23       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2022-12-08 10:51         ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-12-10  1:57           ` Jarkko Sakkinen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Y4sj/ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.