Skip to contentSkip to conversation

AMD fTPM patches for stable

DISCUSSION Jason A. Donenfeld 2 participants 3 messages Aug 9, 2023

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore

Jason A. Donenfeld

author Reviewed-by
#0 lore raw

Hey Greg,

There was recently a bit of a snafoo with a maintainer taking the wrong version of a patch and sending that up to Linus. That patch had incorrect stable@ annotations and had a bug in it. That bug was fixed with a follow up patch. But of course the metadata couldn't be changed easily retroactively.

So I'm emailing to ask you to backport these two patches back to 5.5:

- 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs")
- cacc6e22932f ("tpm: Add a helper for checking hwrng enabled")

I know the stable@ tag says 6.1+, but the actual right tags from the newer versioned patch that didn't get picked are:

Fixes b006c439d58d ("hwrng: core - start hwrng kthread also for untrusted sources")
Fixes f1324bbc4011 ("tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs")
Fixes 3ef193822b25 ("tpm_crb: fix fTPM on AMD Zen+ CPUs")
Reported-by [email protected]
Reported-by [email protected]

Let me know if you need any more info.

Thanks,
Jason

#1 lore raw
Quoted 27 lines · Jason A. Donenfeld

Hey Greg,

There was recently a bit of a snafoo with a maintainer taking the wrong version of a patch and sending that up to Linus. That patch had incorrect stable@ annotations and had a bug in it. That bug was fixed with a follow up patch. But of course the metadata couldn't be changed easily retroactively.

So I'm emailing to ask you to backport these two patches back to 5.5:

- 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs")
- cacc6e22932f ("tpm: Add a helper for checking hwrng enabled")

I know the stable@ tag says 6.1+, but the actual right tags from the newer versioned patch that didn't get picked are:

Fixes b006c439d58d ("hwrng: core - start hwrng kthread also for untrusted sources")
Fixes f1324bbc4011 ("tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs")
Fixes 3ef193822b25 ("tpm_crb: fix fTPM on AMD Zen+ CPUs")
Reported-by [email protected]
Reported-by [email protected]
Quoted 4 lines

Let me know if you need any more info.

Thanks,
Jason

So I had a quick try with the backports to see what happens. 6.1.y and 6.4.y apply cleanly no problem.

However 5.15.y (and presumably 5.5.y) have a variety of issues that I think no longer make it a stable candidate. I started going down the rabbit hole of dependencies and it's massive unless hand modifications are done.

Realistically the problem is most severe in 6.1.y because of b006c439d58d. I don't know it's worth going back any further.

#2 lore raw
Quoted 38 lines · Mario
Quoted 27 lines · Jason A. Donenfeld

Hey Greg,

There was recently a bit of a snafoo with a maintainer taking the wrong version of a patch and sending that up to Linus. That patch had incorrect stable@ annotations and had a bug in it. That bug was fixed with a follow up patch. But of course the metadata couldn't be changed easily retroactively.

So I'm emailing to ask you to backport these two patches back to 5.5:

- 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs")
- cacc6e22932f ("tpm: Add a helper for checking hwrng enabled")

I know the stable@ tag says 6.1+, but the actual right tags from the newer versioned patch that didn't get picked are:

Fixes b006c439d58d ("hwrng: core - start hwrng kthread also for untrusted sources")
Fixes f1324bbc4011 ("tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs")
Fixes 3ef193822b25 ("tpm_crb: fix fTPM on AMD Zen+ CPUs")
Reported-by [email protected]
Reported-by [email protected]
Quoted 4 lines

Let me know if you need any more info.

Thanks,
Jason

So I had a quick try with the backports to see what happens. 6.1.y and 6.4.y apply cleanly no problem.

Quoted 7 lines

However 5.15.y (and presumably 5.5.y) have a variety of issues that I think no longer make it a stable candidate. I started going down the rabbit hole of dependencies and it's massive unless hand modifications are done.

Realistically the problem is most severe in 6.1.y because of b006c439d58d. I don't know it's worth going back any further.

Okay. Your (AMD's) hardware, so I'm fine deferring to your judgement.

Jason