From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA4EC14C5AA for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:31:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738351895; cv=none; b=sSNShPTfRwGu2w3XgdsB8lXuWCVa2EiuowBJrY7BvlKl5w814Oa17oVMCb2xJTMkl1V9EdoY3fx2KfGhwZW9vDzXYwzKe2JDiH9mz5FXCV+iSj01OnUBq5GGCnr1sIMIuYA7VVM9KkQOPdOMgA2o6txR/+4ANIrpmvo8+Kk5uPE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738351895; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f+0RwLRl5D+chZ5U8sCJt4/0g7zQTWsJ6s5SIceqa3c=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:To:Cc:Subject:From: References:In-Reply-To; b=LXkK0htNt6bTZxZ2B7n8t4KntRJUuchmdgME2B/eD7o4xoBc44NWX/3/j7KkogQAPqcjeyWWsxoHrS6vGn5d+cNtQer3sabngoELxK3Rm+WLiE5ViwbkZZTpsEF0bQkZ3irA+fMoLwH4Zzce8mOGVU15oiQa7DDev45Sf1UPDc4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kQzW2aga; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kQzW2aga" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A520CC4CED1; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:31:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738351895; bh=f+0RwLRl5D+chZ5U8sCJt4/0g7zQTWsJ6s5SIceqa3c=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kQzW2agafq50S7/SEoFhQ8pFEkNSeIIfLqR7S0fS8HvTxwULsupZRqXrLsDD0zwcn 5Mdw3TvAe7Wxs4mbmrqf3BiXjR5WNJuQedc8Mj9pluV8PhSYY9SEZqBZn5c0sjX3BT XZCiXgk+Y7JNP/w8RjMNe3ZpwxUjONH9lkc7rd/AalpRANxsfAIkxuVfSOUckYrsGu Oav7FOCW1T/mpOna6q/UvARBgtuK8doChsiBdvlZzaEruHdSZpziRDG7TpruokU8lj SfsHrq0YUgO5j+3rl3PHIfj4yFs/W2MbIGL38c0zULDxl2nids2/thu7fyaDuUgkwD Eb5gOQ45jZmmQ== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:31:30 +0200 Message-Id: To: =?utf-8?q?Michal_Such=C3=A1nek?= Cc: "Jonathan McDowell" , Subject: Re: TPM operation times out (very rarely) From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: In-Reply-To: On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 7:28 PM EET, Michal Such=C3=A1nek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 3:02 PM EET, Michal Such=C3=A1nek wrote: > > > It looks like the timeout_b is used exclusively as the ready timeout = *), > > > with various sources of the value depending on chip type. > > > > > > Then increasing it should not cause any problem other than the kernel > > > waiting longer when the TPM chip is really stuck. > > > > > > * There is one instance of use of timeout_b for TPM_STS_VALID in > > > st33zp24_pm_resume. > >=20 > > Possible for you to give a shot for patch and try it out for a while? > > I'm fine with 2x, or even 4x in this case. > > I will see what I can do. It will definitely take a while. > > How would you like to multiply it? > > At the sime the timeout_b is assigned, or at the time it's used? > > Any specific patch that you have in mind? I'll think about this a bit and send a patch with RFC tag. Might take to late next week. BR, Jarkko