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]

Message-Id: <201102212317.07295.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:17:07 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc:	Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"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 Monday, February 21, 2011, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> 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.

In which case this report will have to be taken into account too:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=129796038509311&w=4

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/