linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: Add missing start/stop_tpm

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: <57e79e19-fe5c-7d41-ff30-40afbaa7a96d@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Sat, 30 Jan 2021 19:36:37 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Łukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>
Cc:     Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Radoslaw Biernacki <rad@...ihalf.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Alex Levin <levinale@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: Add missing start/stop_tpm_chip calls

On 1/30/21 4:41 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-01-30 at 15:49 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 1/29/21 2:59 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:46:07PM +0100, Łukasz Majczak wrote:
>>>> Hi Jarkko, Guenter
>>>>
>>>> Yes, here are the logs when failure occurs -
>>>> https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/1575461f585f1e7fb1e9366b8eceaab9
>>>> Look for a phrase "TPM returned invalid status"
>>>>
>>>> Guenter - good suggestion - I will try to keep it as tight as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Lukasz
>>>
>>> Is it possible for you try out with linux-next? Thanks. It's a
>>> known issue, which ought to be fixed by now.
>>>
>>> The log message is harmless, it'a warning not panic, and does not
>>> endanger system stability. WARN()'s always dump stack trace. No
>>> oops is happening.
>>>
>>
>> There is a note in the kernel documentation which states:
>>
>> Note that the WARN()-family should only be used for "expected to
>> be unreachable" situations. If you want to warn about "reachable
>> but undesirable" situations, please use the pr_warn()-family of
>> functions.
> 
> It fits the definition.  The warning only triggers if the access is in
> the wrong locality, which should be impossible, so the warning should
> be unreachable.
> 
Thanks a lot for the clarification. So a warning traceback in the kernel
doesn't necessarily suggest that there is a serious problem that should
be fixed; it only means that some code is executed which should not be
reachable (but is otherwise harmless).

That makes me wonder, though, if it would make sense to mark such harmless
tracebacks differently. The terms "warning" and "harmless" sound like
a bit of a contradiction to me (especially for systems where panic_on_warn
is set).

Thanks,
Guenter