Re: [PATCH v18 4/6] tpm: tpm_tis: Verify TPM_STS register is valid after locality request

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>]

On Tue, 2021-11-02 at 17:20 +0200, amirmizi6@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>
> 
> An invalid TPM_STS value could be used when the following two events occur:
> TPM does not update TPM_STS register after a locality request (TPM_STS
> Initial value = 0xFF), and a TPM_STS register read occurs in the
> tpm_tis_status(chip) function call.
> 
> In probe_itpm(), a call to tpm_tis_send_data() function is made after a
> request_locality() call, and the condition
> ("if ((status & TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY) == 0)") is checked. At this moment
> if the status value is 0xFF, then it is considered, wrongly, in “ready”
> state (by checking only one bit). However, at this moment the TPM is, in
> fact, in "Idle" state and remains in "Idle" state because
> "tpm_tis_ready(chip);" was not executed.
> Waiting for the condition TPM_STS.tpmGo == 0, will ensure that the TPM
> status register has the correct value.
> 
> Suggested-by: Benoit Houyere <benoit.houyere@st.com>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index 90d92a1..f06c6c6 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -177,8 +177,14 @@ static int request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>         } else {
>                 /* wait for burstcount */
>                 do {
> -                       if (check_locality(chip, l))
> +                       if (check_locality(chip, l)) {
> +                               if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_GO, 0,
> +                                                         chip->timeout_c,
> +                                                         &priv->int_queue,
> +                                                         false) < 0)

Does this compile with the change in 1/6?

/Jarkko