Re: [PATCH v3] tpm: disable hwrng for fTPM on some AMD designs

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 03:55:03AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 02:49:17AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On 3/12/23, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 03:35:08AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 06:43:47PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > >> > [adding Linux to the list of recipients]
> > >> >
> > >> > On 08.03.23 10:42, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> > >> > > Hi, Thorsten here, the Linux kernel's regression tracker. Top-posting
> > >> > > for once, to make this easily accessible to everyone.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jarkko, thx for reviewing and picking below fix up. Are you planning
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > send this to Linus anytime soon, now that the patch was a few days in
> > >> > > next? It would be good to get this 6.1 regression finally fixed, it
> > >> > > already took way longer then the time frame
> > >> > > Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst outlines for a case
> > >> > > like
> > >> > > this. But well, that's how it is sometimes...
> > >> >
> > >> > Linus, would you consider picking this fix up directly from here or
> > >> > from
> > >> > linux-next (8699d5244e37)? It's been in the latter for 9 days now
> > >> > afaics. And the issue seems to bug more than just one or two users, so
> > >> > it IMHO would be good to get this finally resolved.
> > >> >
> > >> > Jarkko didn't reply to my inquiry, guess something else keeps him busy.
> > >>
> > >> That's a bit arrogant. You emailed only 4 days ago.
> > >>
> > >> I'm open to do PR for rc3 with the fix, if it cannot wait to v6.4 pr.
> > >
> > > If this is about slow response with kernel bugzilla: it is not *enforced*
> > > part of the process. If it was, I would use it. Since it isn't, I don't
> > > really want to add any extra weight to my workflow.
> > >
> > > It's not only extra time but also it is not documented how exactly and in
> > > detail you would use it. For email we have all that documented. And when
> > > you don't have guidelines, then it is too flakky to use properly.
> > 
> > No interest in wading into a process argument. But if you're able to
> > send this for rc3, please please do so. Users keep getting hit by
> > this, some email me directly, and I keep replying saying the fix
> > should be released any day now. So let's make that happen.
> 
> Sure, that shouldn't be a problem. I'll queue this for rc3.

Considering "the process argument": I'm just saying that we have user
facing service that is not properly documented to the maintainers, that's
all.

BR, Jarkko