Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Jan 2019 16:31:36 -0700 | From | Jerry Snitselaar <> | Subject | Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to security/next-general |
| |
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.
| |