From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:55351 "EHLO mail-wm0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752960AbeBAS7O (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Feb 2018 13:59:14 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 143so7903312wma.5 for ; Thu, 01 Feb 2018 10:59:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 11:59:09 -0700 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: James Bottomley Cc: Paul Menzel , linux-integrity Subject: Re: TPM selftest failure in 4.15 Message-ID: <20180201185909.GW17053@ziepe.ca> References: <1517487371.3251.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1517488970.3251.26.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1517498648.3145.4.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20180201174053.GQ17053@ziepe.ca> <1517510764.3145.38.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1517510764.3145.38.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 07:46:04PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > I honestly don't think we should be waiting for the self test at all. > We should kick it off and treat any TPM_RC_TESTING error as -EAGAIN. > We're already under fire for slow boot sequences and adding 2s just to > wait for the TPM to self test adds to that for no real value. Arguably the BIOS should have completed the selftest - this stuff generally only exists to support embedded. I don't like the idea of EAGAIN, that just expose all our users to this mess. I would support making transmit_cmd genericly wait and retry if the TPM insists we need to wait for selftest to complete the specific command though. Jason