From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:21177 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750847AbeBHNKL (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:10:11 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 15:10:07 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: James Bottomley Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , Paul Menzel , linux-integrity Subject: Re: TPM selftest failure in 4.15 Message-ID: <20180208131007.wedzl5itrlx2dawn@linux.intel.com> 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> <20180201185909.GW17053@ziepe.ca> <1517515204.3145.51.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1517515204.3145.51.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 09:00:04PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2018-02-01 at 11:59 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > 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. > > OK, how about this then? > > James As long as there is no identified a regression it is a waste of time to review these... /Jarkko