linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.37.1 s2disk regression (TPM)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:10:58 +0100
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	stable@...nel.org,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	debora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	preining@...ic.at
Subject: Re: 2.6.37.1 s2disk regression (TPM)

On 02/21/2011 11:07 PM, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 06:44 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 02/21/2011 10:29 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>> On 02/21/2011 03:39 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> On 02/21/2011 06:12 PM, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
>>>>> On 02/21/2011 01:34 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>>>> There has to be another problem which caused my regression. And
>>>>>> since it
>>>>>> reports "Operation Timed out", the former default timeout values
>>>>>> worked
>>>>>> for me, the ones read from TPM do not.
>>>>> Yes, it's highly due inconsistent timeout values reported by the
>>>>> TPM as
>>>>> I mentioned, my working timeouts are:
>>>>> 3020000 4510000 181000000
>>>> 1000000 2000 150000
>>>>
>>>> Actually the first one from HW is 1. This is one is HZ after correction
>>>> in get_timeout. So perhaps it is in ms, yes.
>>> Following the specs, the timeouts are supposed to be in microseconds and
>>> ascending order for short, medium and long duration. Of course, if the
>>> device returns wrong timeouts, the command isn't going to succeed,
>>> failing the suspend in this case. Nevertheless, I think we need the
>>> patch I put in but at the same time we'll need a work-around for devices
>>> like this.
>> Yes, the patch is correct per se. But as it breaks bunch of machines it
>> cannot go in now. The rule is no regressions.
>>
>> After you have the workaround it should go into the next rc1 after that.
>> Do you plan to add a dmi-based quirk? Or, IOW do you want me to attach
>> dmidecode output? Or are you going to base it solely on TPM
>> manufacturer/version
> It's more reliable to base the workaround on the values themselves,
> instead of the TPM's ID, since
> we don't know whether other models will behave similarly.

As I wrote, you may base it on dmi data.

> It should be fine then to extend the existing workaround for short
> timeouts to the medium and long ones.

OK, but how will you guess the values?

regards,
-- 
js
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/