From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:49:24 +0200 From: Greg KH To: James Bottomley Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , stable@vger.kernel.org, Azhar Shaikh , Jason Gunthorpe , "open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" , open list , Tomas Winkler Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] v4.16 tpmdd backports Message-ID: <20180426174924.GD28091@kroah.com> References: <20180425104425.5803-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20180425110600.GA1996@kroah.com> <1524678812.4100.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1524678812.4100.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:53:32AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:06 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 01:44:20PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > "tpm: add retry logic" caused merge conflicts so I picked couple of > > > other fixes in order to get it apply cleanly. > > > > Are these only needed in 4.16.y?  Nothing earlier? > > The retry one (tpm: add retry logic) could go back as far as you can, > but the bug it causes is rarely seen: mostly it's a failure of the > kernel trusted keys due to a tpm retry being interpreted as a fatal > error. The number of users we have for kernel trusted keys seems to be > pretty small ... > > I'd say if the backport works as is, go for it, but if we get a patch > apply failure, it's probably not worth trying to work out how to modify > the patch again until someone actually complains about the problem. They seem to all work for 4.14.y and 4.16.y, so now queued up, thanks. greg k-h