From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
To: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
Cc: tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org,
open list <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] char/tpm: Check return code of wait_for_tpm_stat
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:16:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161012121606.GA11604@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9174B547-9CD1-4F1B-A2A7-38B9A6AA3B33-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:01:09PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
>
>
> Hi
> Am 11. Oktober 2016 19:13:13 MESZ, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>:
> >On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:01:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> From: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
> >>
> >> In some weird cases it might be possible that the TPM does not set
> >> STS.VALID within the given timeout time (or ever) but sets STS.EXPECT
> >> (STS=0x0C) In this case the driver gets stuck in the while loop of
> >> tpm_tis_send_data and loops endlessly.
> >
> >Doesn't that exchange mean the TPM has lost synchronization with the
> >driver? Or maybe it crashed executing a command or something..
>
> I saw that in the field on quite a few (similar) systems with our lpc tpms - so it affects end users.
> Yes it is caused by some desynchronization or something similar.
>
> If you manually send a commandReady by mmaping the memory region you can un-stuck the driver and the situation was never seen again on that system.
>
> The exact reason how this happens is yet unknown, but the driver should definitely not be stuck in an endless loop (which zombies the application too) in that case but bail out as defined in the TIS protocol. The next access sends the cr which cures the unsynchronization.
Even as a sanity check return codes should be checked so in
any case I leaned towards applying this patch. It makes the
driver more robust.
/Jarkko
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] char/tpm: Check return code of wait_for_tpm_stat
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:16:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161012121606.GA11604@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9174B547-9CD1-4F1B-A2A7-38B9A6AA3B33@gmx.de>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 08:01:09PM +0200, Peter Huewe wrote:
>
>
> Hi
> Am 11. Oktober 2016 19:13:13 MESZ, schrieb Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>:
> >On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 03:01:01PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> From: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
> >>
> >> In some weird cases it might be possible that the TPM does not set
> >> STS.VALID within the given timeout time (or ever) but sets STS.EXPECT
> >> (STS=0x0C) In this case the driver gets stuck in the while loop of
> >> tpm_tis_send_data and loops endlessly.
> >
> >Doesn't that exchange mean the TPM has lost synchronization with the
> >driver? Or maybe it crashed executing a command or something..
>
> I saw that in the field on quite a few (similar) systems with our lpc tpms - so it affects end users.
> Yes it is caused by some desynchronization or something similar.
>
> If you manually send a commandReady by mmaping the memory region you can un-stuck the driver and the situation was never seen again on that system.
>
> The exact reason how this happens is yet unknown, but the driver should definitely not be stuck in an endless loop (which zombies the application too) in that case but bail out as defined in the TIS protocol. The next access sends the cr which cures the unsynchronization.
Even as a sanity check return codes should be checked so in
any case I leaned towards applying this patch. It makes the
driver more robust.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-12 12:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-11 12:01 [PATCH] char/tpm: Check return code of wait_for_tpm_stat Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-10-11 12:01 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
[not found] ` <1476187261-29027-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
2016-10-11 17:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2016-10-11 17:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe
[not found] ` <20161011171313.GD6881-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org>
2016-10-11 18:01 ` Peter Huewe
2016-10-11 18:01 ` Peter Huewe
[not found] ` <9174B547-9CD1-4F1B-A2A7-38B9A6AA3B33-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org>
2016-10-12 12:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2016-10-12 12:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2016-10-21 15:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
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=20161012121606.GA11604@intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen-vuqaysv1563yd54fqh9/ca@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=peterhuewe-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tpmdd-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org \
/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.