On 01/26/2012 01:26 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 06:33:21PM -0200, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 03:49:12PM -0200, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:53:19AM -0200, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
From: Stefan Berger<[email protected]>
This patch adds a delay after aborting a command. Some TPMs need
this and will not process the subsequent command correctly otherwise.
It's worth noting that a TPM randomly failing to process a command,
maps to randomly failing suspend/resume operations.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger<[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit a927b8131794ee449b7f6666e7ab61301949b20f)
[Added comment on the bug's implications]
Signed-off-by: Rajiv Andrade<[email protected]>
---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c | 3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
What stable kernel(s) do you want this applied to?
Ideally, 3.2.y and 3.1.y. I thought the 3.1.10 was the last, is it still
possible to make it into a further 3.1? Otherwise, just the first, 3.2.y.
3.1.y is end of life.
But 3.0.y is still going.
Thanks, just need it in 3.2.y then.
Are you sure? It applies to 3.0-stable as well as 2.6.32-stable just
fine.
Pretty sure it shouldn't be applied there, yes. From the emails we got
it ended up patching the wrong functions in 3.0 and 2.6.32...
3.2:
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
@@ -432,6 +432,9 @@ static int probe_itpm(struct tpm_chip *c
[...]
3.0& 2.6.32:
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
@@ -332,6 +332,9 @@ static int tpm_tis_send(struct tpm_chip
return len;
out:
[...]
Stefan
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
