[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1552409797.24794.65.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2019 12:56:37 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make timeout logic simpler and more robust
On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 14:36 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 04:54:04PM -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > We're having lots of problems with TPM commands timing out, and we're
> > seeing these problems across lots of different hardware (both v1/v2).
> >
> > I instrumented the driver to collect latency data, but I wasn't able to
> > find any specific timeout to fix: it seems like many of them are too
> > aggressive. So I tried replacing all the timeout logic with a single
> > universal long timeout, and found that makes our TPMs 100% reliable.
> >
> > Given that this timeout logic is very complex, problematic, and appears
> > to serve no real purpose, I propose simply deleting all of it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>
>
> Have been thinking about this and I do agree. It has been like that
> before my times with this subsystem so when I did the original TPM2
> patches I carried this logic albeit even at that point I did not get it.
> Now that I've been maintaining for over three years I'm confident that
> this the Right Thing to do.
Please really consider this impact on IMA, before making this change.
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists