[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to security/next-general
From:       Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel () redhat ! com>
Date:       2019-01-31 23:31:36
Message-ID: 20190131233136.3dhadb7a46lp2nu6 () cantor
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu Jan 31 19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:47 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
><jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll try it first thing when I wake up tomorrow (11PM in Finland ATM).
>
>Thanks.
>
>> Appreciate for taking time on this.
>
>Hey, it was my commit that broke it for you. Even if it happened to
>work before, and only did so by pure luck, it was a functional
>regression.
>
>I get very upset when other developers don't step up when *their*
>changes break something, and I don't consider "it shouldn't have
>worked in the first place" to be a valid excuse. You broke it, you'd
>better fix it.
>
>So I had better fix my own mess too, in order to not look too hypocritical.
>
>And I was very aware that hardcoding the memcpy_*io() access patterns
>might break something. I just _hoped_ it wouldn't, because we actually
>ended up going back to the very original access patterns (but it was
>from a long long time ago).
>
>In fact, while it's slightly annoying, in many ways it's actually good
>that we found breakage, and could pinpoint exactly *why* it broke.
>That does validate the whole "we shouldn't just depend on the random
>implementation detail of 'memcpy()'" argument.
>
>So I'll wait to hear back whether that patch fixes things for you, but
>I _think_ it will, and we'll be better off in the long range with this
>whole thing.
>
>              Linus

I just did a quick test here of booting and running a couple commands
(tpm2_getcap, tpm2_pcrlist), and the patch seems to work for me. I was
seeing the error during tpm_crb initialization without the patch.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]