On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:54:39AM -0700, Josh Zimmerman wrote: >> If the TPM we're connecting to uses a static burst count, it will report >> a burst count of zero throughout the response read. However, get_burstcount >> assumes that a response of zero indicates that the TPM is not ready to >> receive more data. In this case, it returns a negative error code, which >> is passed on to tpm_tis_{write,read}_bytes as a u16, causing >> them to read/write far too many bytes. >> >> This patch checks for negative return codes and bails out from recv_data >> and tpm_tis_send_data. >> >> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 > > huh? > > No signed off? > > <formletter> > > This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the > stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt > for how to do this properly. > > </formletter>
Oh, I apologize. I was unfamiliar with the stable@ list, and was asked in v1 of my patch to add it to CCs. I was unaware that there were further prerequisites to doing so. From reading stable_kernel_rules.txt's requirements, it doesn't seem like this is yet ready to be sent here, and perhaps it doesn't belong on the stable@ list at all. Moving stable@ to BCC. Josh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
