linux-kernel - Re: tpm_sis IRQ storm on ThinkStation P360 Tiny

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:   Fri, 5 May 2023 10:25:19 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     peterhuewe@....de, jarkko@...nel.org, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        jgg@...pe.ca, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: tpm_sis IRQ storm on ThinkStation P360 Tiny

On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 07:19:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 08:05:53AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> 
> > It will poll like it has for years with tpm_tis.interrupts=0 so that
> > should be working as it was prior to 6.3 when interrupts were re-enabled
> > for tpm_tis. Are you seeing this with 6.2 as well? IIRC with that Thinkpad
> > case is when it was first realized that interrupts had accidentally been
> > disabled for tpm_tis at one point by a change.
> 
> v6.2 gets me:
> 
> [    8.888394] tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1D, rev-id 54)
> [    8.891123] tpm tpm0: [Firmware Bug]: TPM interrupt not working, polling instead
> 
> > I guess myself or someone else needs to revisit catching this in
> > general when the irq storm happens, and disabling interrupts for
> > tpm_tis. I think last time I was incorporating some feedback from
> > tglx, let my adhd get me distracted with some other issue and never
> > returned to it.
> > 
> > The diff below should (compile tested) work for the P360, but
> > tpm_tis.interrupts=0 is a good work-around.
> 
> Yep, I suppose it would. I'll keep the kernel parameter for now, that's
> easier than making sure I consistently apply that patch.
> 
> Thanks!

Yeah, going back and looking at the history it was the first attempt
that re-enabling interrupts that I think made it show up on the
Thinkpad.

I'll see if I can finish up that patch I was working on before since
this will probably be coming up again now that the interrupts were
re-enabled.

Thank you for the 6.2 info.

Regards,
Jerry