linux-kernel - Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

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: <20191231003355.l4zhdingdw5h2ntx@cantor>
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 17:33:55 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christian Bundy <christianbundy@...ction.io>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        stable-commits@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
 has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

On Tue Dec 31 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 23:41 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
>> this does not fix the problem.
>>
>> As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
>>
>>     5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
>>
>> That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
>> 21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
>> does not appear to change anything in that regard.
>>
>> Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
>> quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
>> workaround.
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@mail.gmail.com/
>
>I think for short term, yes, it is better to revert the commits
>that make things more broken.
>
>for-linus-v5.5-rc5 branch contains three commits that exactly do
>this i.e. the reverts that Stefan sent and revert to Jerry's earlier
>commit.
>
>After that is out of the table it is easier to analyze how the code
>should be actually refactored. Like, I have no idea when I get
>local HW that can reproduce this and Jerry still seems to have the
>same issue. It'd be nice make the exactly right changes instead of
>reverts but situation is what it is.
>

Unfortunately I haven't found a system yet where I get into this code
path. So I've been relying on Dan's testing and the owner of the
t490s.

>Please check the branch and ACK/NAK if I can add tested-by's (and
>other tags).
>
>/Jarkko
>