linux-kernel - Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2] tpm_tis: fix stall after iowrite*()s

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: <2684601.PnLOm3uNmr@ws-stein>
Date:   Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:57:08 +0200
From:   Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com>
To:     Ken Goldman <kgold@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2] tpm_tis: fix stall after iowrite*()s

On Wednesday 16 August 2017 17:15:55, Ken Goldman wrote:
> On 8/15/2017 4:13 PM, Haris Okanovic wrote:
> > ioread8() operations to TPM MMIO addresses can stall the cpu when
> > immediately following a sequence of iowrite*()'s to the same region.
> > 
> > For example, cyclitest measures ~400us latency spikes when a non-RT
> > usermode application communicates with an SPI-based TPM chip (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 write sequence is
> > buffered (in cpu or somewhere along the bus), and gets flushed on the
> > first LOAD instruction (ioread*()) that follows.
> > 
> > The enclosed change appears to fix this issue: read the TPM chip's
> > access register (status code) after every iowrite*() operation to
> > amortize the cost of flushing data to chip across multiple instructions.
> 
> I worry a bit about "appears to fix".  It seems odd that the TPM device
> driver would be the first code to uncover this.  Can anyone confirm that
> the chipset does indeed have this bug?

No, there was already a similar problem in e1000e where a PCIe read stalled 
the CPU, hence no interrupts are serviced. See 
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rt-users/msg14077.html
AFAIK there was no outcome though.

> I'd also like an indication of the performance penalty.  We're doing a
> lot of work to improve the performance and I worry that "do a read after
> every write" will have a performance impact.

Realtime will always affect performance, but IMHO the latter is much more 
important.

Best regards,
Alexander