Re: [PATCH v2] tpm/tpm_crb: Avoid unaligned reads in crb_recv()

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Thu Feb 07 19, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [This is an automated email]
>
> This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag,
> fixing commit: 30fc8d138e91 tpm: TPM 2.0 CRB Interface.
>
> The bot has tested the following trees: v4.20.6, v4.19.19, v4.14.97, v4.9.154, v4.4.172.
>
> v4.20.6: Build OK!
> v4.19.19: Build OK!
> v4.14.97: Build OK!
> v4.9.154: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>    13b1f4a571cc ("tpm_crb: map locality registers")
>    b4e2eb0651ac ("tpm crb: Work around BIOS's that report the wrong ACPI region size")
>
> v4.4.172: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
>    13b1f4a571cc ("tpm_crb: map locality registers")

I'm guessing it is tripping over this not being applied

>    14ddfbf488a0 ("tpm_crb: drop struct resource res from struct crb_priv")
>    1bd047be37d9 ("tpm_crb: Use devm_ioremap_resource")
>    1e3ed59d6200 ("tpm_crb: Drop le32_to_cpu(ioread32(..))")
>    25112048cd59 ("tpm: rework tpm_get_timeouts()")
>    30f9c8c9e2ea ("tpm_crb/tis: fix: use dev_name() for /proc/iomem")
>    422eac3f7dea ("tpm_crb: fix mapping of the buffers")
>    4886cd80cb8e ("Revert "tmp/tpm_crb: implement runtime pm for tpm_crb"")
>    4d627e672bd0 ("tpm_tis: Do not fall back to a hardcoded address for TPM2")
>    51dd43dff74b ("tpm_tis: Use devm_ioremap_resource")
>    55a889c2cb13 ("tpm_crb: Use the common ACPI definition of struct acpi_tpm2")
>    7ab4032fa579 ("tpm_tis: Get rid of the duplicate IRQ probing code")
>    9514ff1961c6 ("tmp/tpm_crb: fix Intel PTT hw bug during idle state")
>    aa77ea0e43dc ("tpm/tpm_crb: cache cmd_size register value.")
>    ba5287b6ef6a ("tpm/tpm_crb: implement tpm crb idle state")
>    e17acbbb69d3 ("tpm/tpm_crb: implement tpm crb idle state")
>    e350e24694e4 ("tmp/tpm_crb: implement runtime pm for tpm_crb")
>    e3837e74a06d ("tpm_tis: Refactor the interrupt setup")
>    ef7b81dc7864 ("tpm_tis: Disable interrupt auto probing on a per-device basis")
>
>
> How should we proceed with this patch?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Sasha