linux-kernel - Re: [Regression 4.15-rc2] New messages `tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest`

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: <c544a476-5ea9-df81-ea8b-01fa578738f0@molgen.mpg.de>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2017 17:07:39 +0100
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Regression 4.15-rc2] New messages `tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314)
 occurred continue selftest`

Dear Jason, dear Alexander,


Thank you for your replies.


Am 08.12.2017 um 16:56 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 12:14:04PM +0000, Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com wrote:

[…]

>> Anyway, from the log messages it is clear that tpm_msleep got called
>> seven times with delays of 20/40/80/160/320/640/1280ms. But still
>> all timestamps lie within the same second. How can this be with a
>> cumulated delay of ~2.5s?
> 
> Yes, that does seem to be the bug, our sleep function doesn't work
> aynmore for some reason :|

I have no access to the system right now, but want to point out, that 
the log was created by `journactl -k`, so I do not know if that messes 
with the time stamps. I checked the output of `dmesg` but didn’t see the 
TPM error messages in the output – only `tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM 
(device-id 0xFE, rev-id 4)`. Do I need to pass a different error message 
to `dmesg`?

>> Also, I've just noticed that despite the name tpm_msleep calls
>> usleep_range, not msleep. Can this have an influence? Should
>> tpm_msleep call msleep for longer delays, as suggested by
>> Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt?
> 
> This change was introduced recently and is probably the source of this
> regression.

I’ll try to test this on Monday.


Kind regards,

Paul