On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 06:35:56AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 06:31:38AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 04:46:26PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:43:13PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 09:35:33PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
Careful with this, you can't backport this to any kernels that don't have the sysfs ops locking changes or they will crash in sysfs code.
Oops, I was way too fast! Thanks Jason.
Hmm... hold on a second.
How would the crash realize? I mean this is at the point when user space should not be active.
Not strictly, AFAIK
Secondly, why the crash would not realize with TPM2? The only thing the fix is doing is to do the same thing with TPM1 essentially.
TPM2 doesn't use the unlocked sysfs path
Gah, sorry :-) I should have known that.
I can go through the patches needed when I come back from my leave after two weeks.
It might require a number of patches but maybe it makes also overally sense to fix the racy sysfs code in stable kernels.
The sysfs isn't racy, it justs used a different locking scheme
Jason