linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: tis: Increase the default for timeouts B and C

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: <Z-5VhOpQOeduSUM1@kitsune.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:31:48 +0200
From: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>
To: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@...th.li>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
	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 10:07:40PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Yes, that's problematic. Is it possible to detect the errata by anything
> other than waiting for the timeout to expire?
> 
> > 
> > (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.)
> 
> Indeed, it should be 750ms but the logs show 200ms. I do not see
> where it could get reduced, nor any significan difference between the
> mainline code and the kernel I am using in this area.

This would come from

drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-cmd.c:    chip->timeout_c = msecs_to_jiffies(TPM2_TIMEOUT_C);
include/linux/tpm.h:    TPM2_TIMEOUT_C          =    200,

So this would need also adjusting.

Thanks

Michal

> 
> Thanks
> 
> Michal
> 
> > 
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/Z5pI07m0Muapyu9w@kitsune.suse.cz/
> > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>
> > > ---
> > > An alternative would be to add an entry to vendor_timeout_overrides but
> > > I do not know how to determine the chip IDs to put into this table.
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
> > > index 970d02c337c7..1ff565be2175 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
> > > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ enum tis_int_flags {
> > > enum tis_defaults {
> > > 	TIS_MEM_LEN = 0x5000,
> > > 	TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT = 750,	/* ms */
> > > -	TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT = 2000,	/* 2 sec */
> > > +	TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT = 4000,	/* 2 sec */
> > > 	TIS_TIMEOUT_MIN_ATML = 14700,	/* usecs */
> > > 	TIS_TIMEOUT_MAX_ATML = 15000,	/* usecs */
> > > };
> > > @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ enum tis_defaults {
> > >  */
> > > #define TIS_TIMEOUT_A_MAX	max_t(int, TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_A)
> > > #define TIS_TIMEOUT_B_MAX	max_t(int, TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_B)
> > > -#define TIS_TIMEOUT_C_MAX	max_t(int, TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_C)
> > > +#define TIS_TIMEOUT_C_MAX	max_t(int, TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_C)
> > > #define TIS_TIMEOUT_D_MAX	max_t(int, TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_D)
> > > 
> > > #define	TPM_ACCESS(l)			(0x0000 | ((l) << 12))
> > > -- 
> > > 2.47.1
> > > 
> > 
> > J.
> > 
> > -- 
> > ... "Tom's root boot is the Linux world equivalent of a 'get out of jail
> >     free' card. The man is a *hero*." -- Simon Brooke, ucol.