[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCZjmf4ZLMnlvu9r@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 12:16:41 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Lukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Tj <ml.linux@...oe.vision>, Dirk Gouders <dirk@...ders.net>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Radoslaw Biernacki <rad@...ihalf.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Alex Levin <levinale@...gle.com>, upstream@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] tpm_tis: Add missing
tpm_request/relinquish_locality() calls
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:06:00PM +0100, Lukasz Majczak wrote:
> There are missing calls to tpm_request_locality() before the calls to
> the tpm_get_timeouts() and tpm_tis_probe_irq_single() - both functions
> internally send commands to the tpm using tpm_tis_send_data()
> which in turn, at the very beginning, calls the tpm_tis_status().
> This one tries to read TPM_STS register, what fails and propagates
> this error upward. The read fails due to lack of acquired locality,
> as it is described in
> TCG PC Client Platform TPM Profile (PTP) Specification,
> paragraph 6.1 FIFO Interface Locality Usage per Register,
> Table 39 Register Behavior Based on Locality Setting for FIFO
> - a read attempt to TPM_STS_x Registers returns 0xFF in case of lack
> of locality. The described situation manifests itself with
> the following warning trace:
>
> [ 4.324298] TPM returned invalid status
> [ 4.324806] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1 at drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c:275 tpm_tis_status+0x86/0x8f
>
> Tested on Samsung Chromebook Pro (Caroline), TPM 1.2 (SLB 9670)
> Fixes: a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()")
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majczak <lma@...ihalf.com>
> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> ---
<formletter>
This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree. Please read:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.
</formletter>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists