[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-7XQYP7_tXYR2Ik@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:45:21 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...th.li>
Cc: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: tis: Increase the default for timeouts B and C
On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:45:40PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 07:21:30PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > With some Infineon chips the timeouts in tpm_tis_send_data (both B and
> > C) can reach up to about 2250 ms.
> >
> > Extend the timeout duration to accommodate this.
>
> The problem here is the bump of timeout_c is going to interact poorly with
> the Infineon errata workaround, as now we'll wait 4s instead of 200ms to
> detect the stuck status change.
>
> (Also shouldn't timeout_c already end up as 750ms, as it's
> max(TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_C), and TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT is 750 vs 200
> for TPM2_TIMEOUT_C? That doesn't seem to be borne out by your logs, nor my
> results.)
Just noticed that the commit did not end up having fixes etc. tags:
https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/linux-tpmdd.git/commit/?id=de9e33df7762abbfc2a1568291f2c3a3154c6a9d
Should we forward to stable?
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists