From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFDB2C742C7 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:27:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A3B21019 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:27:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1562945259; bh=/PnY1//7IlAIuMawKhBmfn4u98uVswB+8uTzAFK7AFA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=zjCZNY4BLoLe3YromC0RsmqQUbSZSkWUXq3pq7/b1TW2vlCoZSVvc7YSIQpROzoKQ VpiL+qonSYPdvcHZaahrHctg09snmlM+gkzfq5M06+o3IuK8djgrSCjYm+wLgb/z+7 YgSED4i4PnkZ+fFiQqMAahzJ49LfxpsrJN2+CtAE= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727009AbfGLP1j (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:27:39 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33048 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726967AbfGLP1j (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:27:39 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25C9F208E4; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 15:27:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1562945257; bh=/PnY1//7IlAIuMawKhBmfn4u98uVswB+8uTzAFK7AFA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=BXXqXSiL94+jmXovFWddcRFv36hnZJYq8wJU/yLC4OYQBnV6zyOUidljBxDU60Ezq 3PNOefRnIjTinVH8/A/DzgVQGTAHz1vwYGS7LR8OcVeFl7k/RvNtV/82CnMqwlrd/v oxQzXha8uCdM9dh2gWhtkbn5MVycAkS2G5tTKF2w= Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 17:27:34 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Doug Anderson Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , "# 4.0+" , Guenter Roeck , Vadim Sukhomlinov , Jarkko Sakkinen , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Huewe , LKML , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence to prevent future TPM operations Message-ID: <20190712152734.GA13940@kroah.com> References: <20190711162919.23813-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20190711163915.GD25807@ziepe.ca> <20190711170437.GA7544@kroah.com> <20190711171726.GE25807@ziepe.ca> <20190711172630.GA11371@kroah.com> <20190712115025.GA8221@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:00:12AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 4:50 AM Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:28:01AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:26 AM Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 02:17:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:04:37PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 01:39:15PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:29:19AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Vadim Sukhomlinov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit db4d8cb9c9f2af71c4d087817160d866ed572cc9 upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > [dianders: resolved merge conflicts with mainline] > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > > > > > This is the backport of the patch referenced above to 4.19 as was done > > > > > > > > in Chrome OS. See for details. It > > > > > > > > presumably applies to some older kernels. NOTE that the problem > > > > > > > > itself has existed for a long time, but continuing to backport this > > > > > > > > exact solution to super old kernels is out of scope for me. For those > > > > > > > > truly interested feel free to reference the past discussion [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reason for backport: mainline has commit a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM > > > > > > > > chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()") and commit 719b7d81f204 > > > > > > > > ("tpm: introduce tpm_chip_start() and tpm_chip_stop()") and it didn't > > > > > > > > seem like a good idea to backport 17 patches to avoid the conflict. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Careful with this, you can't backport this to any kernels that don't > > > > > > > have the sysfs ops locking changes or they will crash in sysfs code. > > > > > > > > > > > > And what commit added that? > > > > > > > > > > commit 2677ca98ae377517930c183248221f69f771c921 > > > > > Author: Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > > Date: Sun Nov 4 11:38:27 2018 +0200 > > > > > > > > > > tpm: use tpm_try_get_ops() in tpm-sysfs.c. > > > > > > > > > > Use tpm_try_get_ops() in tpm-sysfs.c so that we can consider moving > > > > > other decorations (locking, localities, power management for example) > > > > > inside it. This direction can be of course taken only after other call > > > > > sites for tpm_transmit() have been treated in the same way. > > > > > > > > > > The last sentence suggests there are other patches needed too though.. > > > > > > > > So 5.1. So does this original patch need to go into the 5.2 and 5.1 > > > > kernels? > > > > > > The patch ("Fix TPM 1.2 Shutdown sequence to prevent future TPM > > > operations")? It's already done. It just got merge conflicts when > > > going back to 4.19 which is why I sent the backport. > > > > But the sysfs comment means I should not apply this backport then? > > > > Totally confused by this long thread, sorry. > > > > What am I supposed to do for the stable trees here? > > I think the answer is to drop my backport for now and Jarkko says > he'll take a fresh look at it in 2 weeks when he's back from his > leave. Thus my understanding: > > * On mainline: fixed > > * On 5.2 / 5.1: you've already got this picked to stable. Good > > * On 4.14 / 4.19: Jarkko will look at in 2 weeks. > > * On 4.9 and older: I'd propose skipping unless someone is known to > need a solution here. Thanks, that makes sense now. greg k-h