linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make timeout logic simpler and more robust

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: <20190313132232.GB4261@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:22:32 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>, 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, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:04:58PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 16:54 -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.
> 
> Normally before sending such a massive change like this, included in
> the bug report or patch description, there would be some indication as
> to which kernel introduced a regression.  Has this always been a
> problem?  Is this something new?  How new?

Also: is the problem in timeouts, durations or both. Does make sense
to fix something that isn't broken...

/Jarkko