Patch "tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

Patch "tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

[gregkh]

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     tpm_tis-use-default-timeout-value-if-chip-reports-it-as-zero.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.


>From 1d70fe9d9c3a4c627f9757cbba5d628687b121c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 22:37:00 +0100
Subject: tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

From: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>

commit 1d70fe9d9c3a4c627f9757cbba5d628687b121c1 upstream.

Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for
TPM access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9)
no longer works.  The initialization proceeds fine until we get and
start using chip-reported timeouts - and the chip reports C and D
timeouts of zero.

It turns out that until commit 8e54caf407b98e ("tpm: Provide a generic
means to override the chip returned timeouts") we had actually let
default timeout values remain in this case, so let's bring back this
behavior to make chips like Atmel 3203 work again.

Use a common code that was introduced by that commit so a warning is
printed in this case and /sys/class/tpm/tpm*/timeouts correctly says the
timeouts aren't chip-original.


This is a backport for 4.9 kernel version of the original commit, with
renaming of "TPM_TIS_ITPM_POSSIBLE" flag removed since it was only a
cosmetic change and not a part of the real bug fix.

Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c |   53 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
@@ -489,8 +489,7 @@ static int tpm_startup(struct tpm_chip *
 int tpm_get_timeouts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
 {
 	struct tpm_cmd_t tpm_cmd;
-	unsigned long new_timeout[4];
-	unsigned long old_timeout[4];
+	unsigned long timeout_old[4], timeout_chip[4], timeout_eff[4];
 	struct duration_t *duration_cap;
 	ssize_t rc;
 
@@ -542,11 +541,15 @@ int tpm_get_timeouts(struct tpm_chip *ch
 	    != sizeof(tpm_cmd.header.out) + sizeof(u32) + 4 * sizeof(u32))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	old_timeout[0] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.a);
-	old_timeout[1] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.b);
-	old_timeout[2] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.c);
-	old_timeout[3] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.d);
-	memcpy(new_timeout, old_timeout, sizeof(new_timeout));
+	timeout_old[0] = jiffies_to_usecs(chip->timeout_a);
+	timeout_old[1] = jiffies_to_usecs(chip->timeout_b);
+	timeout_old[2] = jiffies_to_usecs(chip->timeout_c);
+	timeout_old[3] = jiffies_to_usecs(chip->timeout_d);
+	timeout_chip[0] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.a);
+	timeout_chip[1] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.b);
+	timeout_chip[2] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.c);
+	timeout_chip[3] = be32_to_cpu(tpm_cmd.params.getcap_out.cap.timeout.d);
+	memcpy(timeout_eff, timeout_chip, sizeof(timeout_eff));
 
 	/*
 	 * Provide ability for vendor overrides of timeout values in case
@@ -554,16 +557,24 @@ int tpm_get_timeouts(struct tpm_chip *ch
 	 */
 	if (chip->ops->update_timeouts != NULL)
 		chip->timeout_adjusted =
-			chip->ops->update_timeouts(chip, new_timeout);
+			chip->ops->update_timeouts(chip, timeout_eff);
 
 	if (!chip->timeout_adjusted) {
-		/* Don't overwrite default if value is 0 */
-		if (new_timeout[0] != 0 && new_timeout[0] < 1000) {
-			int i;
+		/* Restore default if chip reported 0 */
+		int i;
 
+		for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(timeout_eff); i++) {
+			if (timeout_eff[i])
+				continue;
+
+			timeout_eff[i] = timeout_old[i];
+			chip->timeout_adjusted = true;
+		}
+
+		if (timeout_eff[0] != 0 && timeout_eff[0] < 1000) {
 			/* timeouts in msec rather usec */
-			for (i = 0; i != ARRAY_SIZE(new_timeout); i++)
-				new_timeout[i] *= 1000;
+			for (i = 0; i != ARRAY_SIZE(timeout_eff); i++)
+				timeout_eff[i] *= 1000;
 			chip->timeout_adjusted = true;
 		}
 	}
@@ -572,16 +583,16 @@ int tpm_get_timeouts(struct tpm_chip *ch
 	if (chip->timeout_adjusted) {
 		dev_info(&chip->dev,
 			 HW_ERR "Adjusting reported timeouts: A %lu->%luus B %lu->%luus C %lu->%luus D %lu->%luus\n",
-			 old_timeout[0], new_timeout[0],
-			 old_timeout[1], new_timeout[1],
-			 old_timeout[2], new_timeout[2],
-			 old_timeout[3], new_timeout[3]);
+			 timeout_chip[0], timeout_eff[0],
+			 timeout_chip[1], timeout_eff[1],
+			 timeout_chip[2], timeout_eff[2],
+			 timeout_chip[3], timeout_eff[3]);
 	}
 
-	chip->timeout_a = usecs_to_jiffies(new_timeout[0]);
-	chip->timeout_b = usecs_to_jiffies(new_timeout[1]);
-	chip->timeout_c = usecs_to_jiffies(new_timeout[2]);
-	chip->timeout_d = usecs_to_jiffies(new_timeout[3]);
+	chip->timeout_a = usecs_to_jiffies(timeout_eff[0]);
+	chip->timeout_b = usecs_to_jiffies(timeout_eff[1]);
+	chip->timeout_c = usecs_to_jiffies(timeout_eff[2]);
+	chip->timeout_d = usecs_to_jiffies(timeout_eff[3]);
 
 duration:
 	tpm_cmd.header.in = tpm_getcap_header;


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from mail@maciej.szmigiero.name are

queue-4.9/tpm_tis-use-default-timeout-value-if-chip-reports-it-as-zero.patch