linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] tpm_tis: tpm_tcg

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, 14 Aug 2017 17:52:38 -0500
From:   Haris Okanovic <haris.okanovic@...com>
To:     Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        harisokn@...il.com, gratian.crisan@...com, scott.hartman@...com,
        chris.graf@...com, brad.mouring@...com, jonathan.david@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] tpm_tis: tpm_tcg_flush() after iowrite*()s



On 08/07/2017 09:59 AM, Julia Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 04:56:51PM -0500, Haris Okanovic wrote:
>> I have a latency issue using a SPI-based TPM chip with tpm_tis driver
>> from non-rt usermode application, which induces ~400 us latency spikes
>> in cyclictest (Intel Atom E3940 system, PREEMPT_RT_FULL kernel).
>>
>> The spikes are caused by a stalling ioread8() operation, following a
>> sequence of 30+ iowrite8()s to the same address. I believe this happens
>> because the writes are cached (in cpu or somewhere along the bus), which
>> gets flushed on the first LOAD instruction (ioread*()) that follows.
> 
> To use the ARM parlance, these accesses aren't "cached" (which would
> imply that a result could be returned to the load from any intermediate
> node in the interconnect), but instead are "bufferable".
> 

Fixed wording

> It is really unfortunate that we continue to run into this class of
> problem across various CPU vendors and various underlying bus
> technologies; it's the continuing curse of running an PREEMPT_RT on
> commodity hardware.  RT is not easy :)
> 
>> The enclosed change appears to fix this issue: read the TPM chip's
>> access register (status code) after every iowrite*() operation.
> 
> Are we engaged in a game of wack-a-mole with all of the drivers which
> use this same access pattern (of which I imagine there are quite a
> few!)?
> 
> I'm wondering if we should explore the idea of adding a load in the
> iowriteN()/writeX() macros (marking those accesses in which reads cause
> side effects explicitly, redirecting to a _raw() variant or something).
> 
> Obviously that would be expensive for non-RT use cases, but for helping
> constrain latency, it may be worth it for RT.
> 
>     Julia
>