[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180528090147.yjuup2jved7geumv@cantor>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 02:01:47 -0700
From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@...ian.org>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: verify locality released before returning from
release_locality
On Mon May 28 18, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Top posting, sorry.
>
>I don't know if I did it well to include the "Tested-by" tag because I
>don't see that the patch has landed in linus branch already.
>
>And as far as I understand, this will not be in the upcoming 4.17
>release as we are already late in the cycle?
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Laurent Bigonville
>
It should go into his branch during the merge window for 4.18.
>
>Le 11/05/18 à 21:02, Laurent Bigonville a écrit :
>>Le 05/05/18 à 22:03, Jerry Snitselaar a écrit :
>>>On Sat May 05 18, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>>>>For certain tpm chips releasing locality can take long enough that a
>>>>subsequent call to request_locality will see the locality as being
>>>>active when the access register is read in check_locality. So check
>>>>that the locality has been released before returning from
>>>>release_locality.
>>>>
>>>>Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
>>>>Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
>>>>Reported-by: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@...ian.org>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
>>Tested-by: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@...ian.org>
>>>>---
>>>>drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 47
>>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>>>>b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>>>>index 5a1f47b43947..d547cd309dbd 100644
>>>>--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>>>>+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>>>>@@ -143,13 +143,58 @@ static bool check_locality(struct tpm_chip
>>>>*chip, int l)
>>>> return false;
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>+static bool locality_inactive(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>>>>+{
>>>>+ struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>>>>+ int rc;
>>>>+ u8 access;
>>>>+
>>>>+ rc = tpm_tis_read8(priv, TPM_ACCESS(l), &access);
>>>>+ if (rc < 0)
>>>>+ return false;
>>>>+
>>>>+ if ((access & (TPM_ACCESS_VALID | TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY))
>>>>+ == TPM_ACCESS_VALID)
>>>>+ return true;
>>>>+
>>>>+ return false;
>>>>+}
>>>>+
>>>>static int release_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>>>>{
>>>> struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>>>>+ unsigned long stop, timeout;
>>>>+ long rc;
>>>>
>>>> tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_ACCESS(l), TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY);
>>>>
>>>>- return 0;
>>>>+ stop = jiffies + chip->timeout_a;
>>>>+
>>>>+ if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ) {
>>>>+again:
>>>>+ timeout = stop - jiffies;
>>>>+ if ((long)timeout <= 0)
>>>>+ return -1;
>>>>+
>>>>+ rc = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->int_queue,
>>>>+ (locality_inactive(chip, l)),
>>>>+ timeout);
>>>>+
>>>>+ if (rc > 0)
>>>>+ return 0;
>>>>+
>>>>+ if (rc == -ERESTARTSYS && freezing(current)) {
>>>>+ clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
>>>>+ goto again;
>>>>+ }
>>>>+ } else {
>>>>+ do {
>>>>+ if (locality_inactive(chip, l))
>>>>+ return 0;
>>>>+ tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT);
>>>>+ } while (time_before(jiffies, stop));
>>>>+ }
>>>>+ return -1;
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>static int request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>>>>--
>>>>2.15.0
>>>>
>>>
>>>Laurent,
>>>
>>>Can you try this patch with your system since it is the one
>>>that has exhibited the problem so far. I've tested on a
>>>tpm2.0 and tpm1.2 system here.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Jerry
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists