All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "Michal Suchánek" <msuchanek@suse.de>
Cc: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>
Subject: Re: TPM operation times out (very rarely)
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 04:03:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z8Jq-wyFm9Ye8B_j@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z7xsmNq0kEj0cHco@kitsune.suse.cz>

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 01:56:56PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 10:29:45PM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 04:27:15PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > there is a problem report that booting a specific type of system about
> > > 0.1% of the time encrypted volume (using a PCR to release the key) fails
> > > to unlock because of TPM operation timeout.
> > > 
> > > Minimizing the test case failed so far.
> > > 
> > > For example, booting into text mode as opposed to graphical desktop
> > > makes the problem unreproducible.
> > > 
> > > The test is done with a frankenkernel that has TPM drivers about on par
> > > with Linux 6.4 but using actual Linux 6.4 the problem is not
> > > reproducible, either.
> > > 
> > > However, given the problem takes up to a day to reproduce I do not have
> > > much confidence in the negative results.
> > 
> > Michal, can you possibly try the below and see if it helps out? There
> > seems to be a timing bug introduced in 6.4+ that I think might be
> > related, and matches up with some of our internal metrics that showed an
> > increase in timeouts in 6.4 onwards.
> > 
> > commit 79041fba797d0fe907e227012767f56dd93fac32
> > Author: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@meta.com>
> > Date:   Wed Feb 19 16:20:44 2025 -0600
> > 
> >     tpm, tpm_tis: Fix timeout handling when waiting for TPM status
> >     
> >     The change to only use interrupts to handle supported status changes,
> >     then switch to polling for the rest, inverted the status test and sleep
> >     such that we can end up sleeping beyond our timeout and not actually
> >     checking the status. This can result in spurious TPM timeouts,
> >     especially on a more loaded system. Fix by switching the order back so
> >     we sleep *then* check. We've done a up front check when we enter the
> >     function so this won't cause an additional delay when the status is
> >     already what we're looking for.
> >     
> >     Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v6.4+
> >     Fixes: e87fcf0dc2b4 ("tpm, tpm_tis: Only handle supported interrupts")
> >     Signed-off-by: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@meta.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de>

Send as a proper patch. I've this month mostly on holiday but will be
back at work on Monday.

BR, Jarkko

      reply	other threads:[~2025-03-01  2:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-29 15:27 TPM operation times out (very rarely) Michal Suchánek
2025-01-29 16:02 ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-01-29 16:20   ` Michal Suchánek
2025-01-29 17:14     ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-01-29 17:25       ` Michal Suchánek
2025-01-30 23:31   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-01-31  8:35     ` Michal Suchánek
2025-01-31 10:25       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-01-31 13:02         ` Michal Suchánek
2025-01-31 17:12           ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-01-31 17:28             ` Michal Suchánek
2025-01-31 19:31               ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-02-05 13:26                 ` Michal Suchánek
2025-02-05 13:45                   ` Michal Suchánek
2025-02-05 14:29                   ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-02-05 15:29                     ` Michal Suchánek
2025-02-06 20:35                     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-02-07  9:26                       ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-02-07  9:40                         ` Michal Suchánek
2025-02-07  9:47                           ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-02-07  9:58                             ` Michal Suchánek
2025-02-10 16:13                               ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-02-10 17:30                                 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-02-08 20:29                         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-02-10 16:18                           ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-02-10 17:32                             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-02-24 13:04                               ` Michal Suchánek
2025-03-01  2:13                                 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-03-05 12:20                                   ` Michal Suchánek
2025-03-06 22:29                                     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-03-27 12:57                     ` Michal Suchánek
2025-03-27 13:15                       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2025-02-19 22:29 ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-02-20  8:42   ` Michal Suchánek
2025-02-21 12:44     ` Jonathan McDowell
2025-02-24 12:21       ` Michal Suchánek
2025-02-24 12:56   ` Michal Suchánek
2025-03-01  2:03     ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]

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=Z8Jq-wyFm9Ye8B_j@kernel.org \
    --to=jarkko@kernel.org \
    --cc=l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=msuchanek@suse.de \
    --cc=noodles@earth.li \
    /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.