Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1650489 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class".

Started byGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
First post2017-05-25 15:20 +0200
Last post2017-05-25 19:10 +0200
Articles 8 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-05-25 15:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Josh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com> - 2017-05-25 17:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-05-25 18:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Josh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com> - 2017-05-25 18:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-05-25 18:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-26 00:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-25 19:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class". Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-05-25 19:10 +0200

#1650489 — Re: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class".

FromGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2017-05-25 15:20 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] Add "shutdown" to "struct class".
Message-ID<tL0Qi-fG-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:34:38AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> The TPM class has some common shutdown code that must be executed for
> all drivers. This adds some needed functionality for that.
> 
> Usage example: 'tpm: Issue a TPM2_Shutdown for TPM2 devices.'
> (see https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9724919/ for v2).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com>

Given that the tpm code is going to need this, I recommend someone take
it through that tree:

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

Otherwise, if you want me to take it, I can, but I doubt you want it in
my driver-core tree as that will not get merged to Linus until 4.13-rc1.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650603

FromJosh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com>
Date2017-05-25 17:50 +0200
Message-ID<tL3bs-1AL-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1650489
Thanks, Greg.

Greg, Jarkko: Do either of you you have any objections to me
backporting these changes to 4.4 and 4.9? I'd like to make sure that
at least the couple most recent LTS kernels have this patch. (I don't
care so much about 4.1 as it'll be EOL'd this September, according to
https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html, but I can backport it
to there as well if desired.)

Thanks,

Josh

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:34:38AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> > The TPM class has some common shutdown code that must be executed for
> > all drivers. This adds some needed functionality for that.
> >
> > Usage example: 'tpm: Issue a TPM2_Shutdown for TPM2 devices.'
> > (see https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9724919/ for v2).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com>
>
> Given that the tpm code is going to need this, I recommend someone take
> it through that tree:
>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>
> Otherwise, if you want me to take it, I can, but I doubt you want it in
> my driver-core tree as that will not get merged to Linus until 4.13-rc1.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650614

FromGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2017-05-25 18:10 +0200
Message-ID<tL3uN-1Wk-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1650603
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> Thanks, Greg.
> 
> Greg, Jarkko: Do either of you you have any objections to me
> backporting these changes to 4.4 and 4.9? I'd like to make sure that
> at least the couple most recent LTS kernels have this patch.

Why?  What bug does this solve?  If it meets the rules of
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt (or whereever that file moved to),
that's fine with me.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650632

FromJosh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com>
Date2017-05-25 18:30 +0200
Message-ID<tL3Oa-237-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1650614
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
>> Thanks, Greg.
>>
>> Greg, Jarkko: Do either of you you have any objections to me
>> backporting these changes to 4.4 and 4.9? I'd like to make sure that
>> at least the couple most recent LTS kernels have this patch.
>
> Why?  What bug does this solve?
If a TPM2 device has power removed without a TPM2_Shutdown being
issued, it will increment its "dictionary attack" counter. After that
counter reaches a certain value, the TPM2 device will lock the user
out. Adding the shutdown callback allows the TPM kernel driver to send
TPM2_Shutdown to all TPM2 devices.

> If it meets the rules of
> Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt (or whereever that file moved to),
> that's fine with me.
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst, right? To comply with
option 1 referred to there (Adding the appropriate "Cc:" to the
description), should I send a new patch email or just reply to this
one and quote the relevant part? (I don't believe the document
specifies.)

Thanks,

Josh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650643

FromGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date2017-05-25 18:50 +0200
Message-ID<tL47w-29T-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1650632
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:24:30AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> >> Thanks, Greg.
> >>
> >> Greg, Jarkko: Do either of you you have any objections to me
> >> backporting these changes to 4.4 and 4.9? I'd like to make sure that
> >> at least the couple most recent LTS kernels have this patch.
> >
> > Why?  What bug does this solve?
> If a TPM2 device has power removed without a TPM2_Shutdown being
> issued, it will increment its "dictionary attack" counter. After that
> counter reaches a certain value, the TPM2 device will lock the user
> out. Adding the shutdown callback allows the TPM kernel driver to send
> TPM2_Shutdown to all TPM2 devices.

Is all of that in the tpm patch description?  If so, great, if not,
please add it.

> > If it meets the rules of
> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt (or whereever that file moved to),
> > that's fine with me.
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst, right? To comply with
> option 1 referred to there (Adding the appropriate "Cc:" to the
> description), should I send a new patch email or just reply to this
> one and quote the relevant part? (I don't believe the document
> specifies.)

You (or who ever applies these patches) needs to add the cc: stable tag
to them.  I suggest resend these, as a patch series, with that in it, so
that it all makes more sense and the tpm maintainer has an easy job of
it.

thanks,

greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650955

FromJarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date2017-05-26 00:50 +0200
Message-ID<tL9JT-5SC-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1650643
Josh,

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:41:18PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:24:30AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> > >> Thanks, Greg.
> > >>
> > >> Greg, Jarkko: Do either of you you have any objections to me
> > >> backporting these changes to 4.4 and 4.9? I'd like to make sure that
> > >> at least the couple most recent LTS kernels have this patch.
> > >
> > > Why?  What bug does this solve?
> > If a TPM2 device has power removed without a TPM2_Shutdown being
> > issued, it will increment its "dictionary attack" counter. After that
> > counter reaches a certain value, the TPM2 device will lock the user
> > out. Adding the shutdown callback allows the TPM kernel driver to send
> > TPM2_Shutdown to all TPM2 devices.
> 
> Is all of that in the tpm patch description?  If so, great, if not,
> please add it.
> 
> > > If it meets the rules of
> > > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt (or whereever that file moved to),
> > > that's fine with me.
> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst, right? To comply with
> > option 1 referred to there (Adding the appropriate "Cc:" to the
> > description), should I send a new patch email or just reply to this
> > one and quote the relevant part? (I don't believe the document
> > specifies.)
> 
> You (or who ever applies these patches) needs to add the cc: stable tag
> to them.  I suggest resend these, as a patch series, with that in it, so
> that it all makes more sense and the tpm maintainer has an easy job of
> it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Can you send one more patch set with these two patches and Cc-tags and
refined descriptions where needed. If you do this, I will apply them to
my tree and send PR to James Morris. Thank you.

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650667

FromJarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date2017-05-25 19:10 +0200
Message-ID<tL4qT-2vP-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1650603
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:40:28AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> Thanks, Greg.
> 
> Greg, Jarkko: Do either of you you have any objections to me
> backporting these changes to 4.4 and 4.9? I'd like to make sure that
> at least the couple most recent LTS kernels have this patch. (I don't
> care so much about 4.1 as it'll be EOL'd this September, according to
> https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html, but I can backport it
> to there as well if desired.)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Josh

Nope.

/Jarkko

> 
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:34:38AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> > > The TPM class has some common shutdown code that must be executed for
> > > all drivers. This adds some needed functionality for that.
> > >
> > > Usage example: 'tpm: Issue a TPM2_Shutdown for TPM2 devices.'
> > > (see https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9724919/ for v2).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com>
> >
> > Given that the tpm code is going to need this, I recommend someone take
> > it through that tree:
> >
> > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >
> > Otherwise, if you want me to take it, I can, but I doubt you want it in
> > my driver-core tree as that will not get merged to Linus until 4.13-rc1.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650665

FromJarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Date2017-05-25 19:10 +0200
Message-ID<tL4qS-2vP-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1650489
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 03:09:30PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 10:34:38AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote:
> > The TPM class has some common shutdown code that must be executed for
> > all drivers. This adds some needed functionality for that.
> > 
> > Usage example: 'tpm: Issue a TPM2_Shutdown for TPM2 devices.'
> > (see https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9724919/ for v2).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Zimmerman <joshz@google.com>
> 
> Given that the tpm code is going to need this, I recommend someone take
> it through that tree:
> 
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> Otherwise, if you want me to take it, I can, but I doubt you want it in
> my driver-core tree as that will not get merged to Linus until 4.13-rc1.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I can take this to the tpmdd tree. For me only thing that matters that
there isn't collisions. If we all agree on this, I'll apply Josh's
patches and include to my next PR.

/Jarkko

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web