linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core

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: <37f4ed0d6145dbe1e8724a5d05d0da82b593bf9c.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 01:06:40 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian Bundy <christianbundy@...ction.io>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of
 tpm_tis_core_init

On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 10:18 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Tue Dec 17 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 18:14 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:00 PM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon Dec 16 19, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:59 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > > <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2019-12-11 at 16:54 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > > > > > Instead of repeatedly calling tpm_chip_start/tpm_chip_stop when
> > > > > > > issuing commands to the tpm during initialization, just reserve the
> > > > > > > chip after wait_startup, and release it when we are ready to call
> > > > > > > tpm_chip_register.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Cc: Christian Bundy <christianbundy@...ction.io>
> > > > > > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
> > > > > > > Cc: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > > > Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > > > Fixes: a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()")
> > > > > > > Fixes: 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I pushed to my master with minor tweaks and added my tags.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please check before I put it to linux-next.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't see it yet here:
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/jjs/linux-tpmdd.git/shortlog/refs/heads/master
> > > > > 
> > > > > However, I wanted to make sure you captured that this does *not* fix
> > > > > the interrupt issue. I.e. make sure you remove the "Fixes:
> > > > > 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")"
> > > > > tag.
> > > > > 
> > > > > With that said, are you going to include the revert of:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1ea32c83c699 tpm_tis_core: Set TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ before probing for interrupts
> > > > 
> > > > Dan, with the above reverted do you still get the screaming interrupt?
> > > 
> > > Yes, the screaming interrupt goes away, although it is replaced by
> > > these messages when the driver starts:
> > > 
> > > [    3.725131] tpm_tis IFX0740:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1B, rev-id 16)
> > > [    3.725358] tpm tpm0: tpm_try_transmit: send(): error -5
> > > [    3.725359] tpm tpm0: [Firmware Bug]: TPM interrupt not working,
> > > polling instead
> > > 
> > > If the choice is "error message + polled-mode" vs "pinning a cpu with
> > > interrupts" I'd accept the former, but wanted Jarkko with his
> > > maintainer hat to weigh in.
> > > 
> > > Is there a simple sanity check I can run to see if the TPM is still
> > > operational in this state?
> > 
> > What about T490S?
> > 
> > /Jarkko
> > 
> 
> Hi Jarkko, I'm waiting to hear back from the t490s user, but I imagine
> it still has the problem as well.
> 
> Christian, were you able to try this patch and verify it still
> resolves the issue you were having with the kernel failing to get the
> timeouts and durations from the tpm?

Including those reverts would be a bogus change at this point.

The fix that I already applied obviously fixes an issue even if
it does not fix all the issues.

/Jarkko