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
next prev 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox