All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>,
	linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TPM selftest failure in 4.15
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 08:18:07 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1518193087.3930.4.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180209100204.likckglpdx427dnl@linux.intel.com>

On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 12:02 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:02:00AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 
> > There is an identified regression: the TPM driver will now
> > periodically
> > fail to attach.  However, there's no point reviewing until we agree
> > what the fix is.  I was just waiting to verify this fixed my
> > problem
> > (which means seeing the messages it spits out proving the TPM has
> > remained in self test).  I have now seen this and the driver still
> > works, so I can submit a formal patch.
> 
> For the self-test the duration falls down to 2 seconds as the specs
> do
> not contain any well-defined duration for it, or at least I haven't
> found it.
> 
> I see three alternative ways the fix the self-test:
> 
> 1. Execute self-test with fullTest = YES.
> 2. Have a flag TPM_CHIP_TESTING that is set when the self-test is
>    started. Issue a warning on time-out. Check for this flag in
>    tpm_transmit_cmd() and tpm_write() and resend self-test command
>    if the flag is stil test before the actual command. Return -EBUSY
>    and print a warning if self-test is still active.
> 3. Increase the duration to the "correct" value if we have one.

Actually, I disagree.  The first principle we got out of the discussion
was don't re-send the selftest command if the TPM says it's still
running self tests, so we definitely need only to send it once.

I think if the TPM returns returns RC_TESTING we continue on booting
and let it run selftest in the background.  We don't need a flag
because it will return RC_TESTING to any command that tries to exercise
a system under test.  So all we need to do is look for that return,
pause and retry up to a timeout.  If you look at the patch I submitted:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-integrity&m=151812288917753

That's pretty much what it does.

I really think adding more delay to boot up to try and determine when
the selftests "finish" is the wrong way to do this given that data from
the XPS-13 confirms this is somewhere above 2s, which is already a huge
boot wait.

James

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-02-09 16:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-01 12:16 TPM selftest failure in 4.15 James Bottomley
2018-02-01 12:21 ` Paul Menzel
2018-02-01 12:42   ` James Bottomley
2018-02-01 15:24     ` James Bottomley
2018-02-01 17:40       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-02-01 18:46         ` James Bottomley
2018-02-01 18:59           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-02-01 20:00             ` James Bottomley
2018-02-01 20:35               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-02-01 21:06                 ` James Bottomley
2018-02-08 13:10               ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-08 17:02                 ` James Bottomley
2018-02-09 10:02                   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-09 10:30                     ` Nayna Jain
2018-02-15 12:00                       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-09 11:47                     ` Alexander Steffen
2018-02-15 12:12                       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-15 15:13                         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-16 18:30                           ` Alexander Steffen
2018-02-19  9:15                             ` Nayna Jain
2018-02-19 22:26                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-02-16 18:27                         ` Alexander Steffen
2018-02-20 13:05                           ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-09 12:26                     ` Mimi Zohar
2018-02-09 16:23                       ` James Bottomley
2018-02-09 21:23                         ` Mimi Zohar
2018-04-08 18:27                         ` Ken Goldman
2018-02-09 16:18                     ` James Bottomley [this message]
2018-02-08 17:27         ` Ken Goldman
2018-02-01 19:16       ` TPM selftest failure in 4.15 (Dell XPS 13, Nuvoton 6xx) Paul Menzel
2018-02-01 19:17         ` Paul Menzel
2018-02-01 20:12           ` Mario.Limonciello
2018-02-01 21:06             ` Mario.Limonciello
2018-02-01 22:22               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2018-02-02  5:46                 ` James Bottomley
2018-02-02  5:46             ` James Bottomley
2018-02-08 16:53             ` Ken Goldman
2018-02-08 13:18         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-08 13:05       ` TPM selftest failure in 4.15 Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-08 13:03     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-08 12:49 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-02-08 18:45 ` Ken Goldman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1518193087.3930.4.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
    --to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.