linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

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:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 22:26:44 +0100
From:   "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
        Christophe Ricard <christophe.ricard@...il.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as
 zero

On 25.01.2017 21:09, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:42:29PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> On 24.01.2017 13:01, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>> On 16.01.2017 17:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM
>>>>>>>>>> access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no
>>>>>>>>>> longer works.
>>>>>>>>>> The initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using chip-reported
>>>>>>>>>> timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that until commit 8e54caf407b98e ("tpm: Provide a generic
>>>>>>>>>> means to override the chip returned timeouts") we had actually let default
>>>>>>>>>> timeout values remain in this case, so let's bring back this behavior to
>>>>>>>>>> make chips like Atmel 3203 work again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use a common code that was introduced by that commit so a warning is
>>>>>>>>>> printed in this case and /sys/class/tpm/tpm*/timeouts correctly says the
>>>>>>>>>> timeouts aren't chip-original.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@...iej.szmigiero.name>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's now applied to my master branch so if someone wants to
>>>>>>>> test it, it should be fairly easy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I decided to squash the rename commit to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to squash the rename commit into "fix iTPM probe via
>>>>>> probe_itpm() function" patch (if it isn't too late), since they touch the
>>>>>> same functionality?
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be renamed, modified and even dropped as long as it is in my
>>>>> master branch and I haven't sent pull request to James Morris.
>>>>
>>>> I see that "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch isn't present
>>>> in your pull request for 4.11.
>>>>
>>>> What I meant in previous message was that you squashed and "rename
>>>> TPM_TIS_ITPM_POSSIBLE to TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND" patch into "use default timeout
>>>> value if chip reports it as zero" patch while it was logically connected with
>>>> "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch instead (which now isn't present
>>>> at all in the tree).
>>>> Sorry if it wasn't 100% clear.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>>
>>> I'll probably send later on pull request with fixes for release content
>>> I can include that commit into that pull request. Does that work for
>>> you?
>>
>> Yes, it would be fine, thanks.
> 
> It's now applied and pushed.

Almost there: it looks like the last hunk of the patch is missing from
the commit.

> /Jarkko

Maciej