[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEm+gqyp0aa4ULYa@e129823.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:36:02 +0100
From: Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: sudeep.holla@....com, peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca,
stuart.yoder@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] fix failure of integration IMA with tpm_crb_ffa
Hi Jarkko,
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 04:22:04PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote:
> > > OK, if ffa_init() is leveled up in the initcall hierarchy, shouldn't
> > > that be enough as long as ko's can be found from initramfs?
> >
> > As you mentioned, this is handled in Patch #1.
> > However, although ffa_init() is called first,
> > unless tpm_crb_ffa_init() is also invoked,
> > crb_acpi_driver_init() will fail with -EPROBE_DEFER.
> >
> > Please note that IMA is always built-in and cannot be built as a module.
>
> Sure but if one needs IMA, then tpm_crb_ffa can be compiled as built-in
> with zero code changes.
All of my describtion based on all things are built as "built-in".
in case of ffa_init() changes the init level to root_initcall,
so, the ffa_device will be produced first before the trial of TPM probe.
Note that tpm_crb_ffa_init() which is the "ffa_driver" is called in
device_initcall level. I mean
ffa_init() -> arm_ffa -> root_initcall
tpm_crb_ffa_init() -> device_initcall
crb_acpi_driver_init() -> device_initcall
therefore, "crb_acpi_driver_init()" can be call first before
tpm_crb_ffa_init() since they're deployed in device_initcall.
If this happen, "crb_acpi_driver_init()" failed with -EPROBE_DEFER.
That's why this patch is required to probe "tpm_crb_ffa" when
crb_acpi_driver_init() called to complete the TPM device probe before
IMA subsystem initailization.
Thanks.
--
Sincerely,
Yeoreum Yun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists