linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: ibmvtpm: Avoid error message when process gets signal while waiting

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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:39:18 -0400
From:   Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, peterhuewe@....de,
        jgg@...pe.ca, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Nageswara R Sastry <rnsastry@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: ibmvtpm: Avoid error message when process gets
 signal while waiting


On 7/28/21 5:50 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:00:51PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 7/26/21 10:42 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:25:05PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>> When rngd is run as root then lots of these types of message will appear
>>>> in the kernel log if the TPM has been configure to provide random bytes:
>>>>
>>>> [ 7406.275163] tpm tpm0: tpm_transmit: tpm_recv: error -4
>>>>
>>>> The issue is caused by the following call that is interrupted while
>>>> waiting for the TPM's response.
>>>>
>>>> sig = wait_event_interruptible(ibmvtpm->wq,
>>>>                                  !ibmvtpm->tpm_processing_cmd);
>>>>
>>>> The solution is to use wait_event() instead.
>>> Why?
>> So it becomes uninterruptible and these error messages go away.
> We do not want to make a process uninterruptible. That would prevent
> killing it.

I guess we'll have to go back to this one then: 
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg16741.html

    Stefan


>
> /Jarkko