From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@intel.com>,
"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org"
<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix incorrect success returns from tpm_try_transmit()
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 19:16:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190110171658.GB6589@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1546532238.2824.10.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 08:17:18AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 15:34 +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: James Bottomley [mailto:James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com
> > > ]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 17:24
> > > To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Winkler, Tomas <tomas.winkler@intel.com>; linux-
> > > integrity@vger.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix incorrect success returns from
> > > tpm_try_transmit()
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 14:59 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 10:27:31AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > Ever since 627448e85c766 "tpm: separate cmd_ready/go_idle from
> > > > > runtime_pm" we have been returning success from
> > > > > tpm_try_transmit() even if an error occurred. The reason is
> > > > > that the introduction of rc = tpm_go_idle() at the end of
> > > > > processing overwrites the value of rc if it contains an error
> > > > > code (mostly with success). Fix this by writing the return to
> > > > > a new variable rc1 instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 627448e85c766 "tpm: separate cmd_ready/go_idle from
> > > > > runtime_pm"
> > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnersh
> > > > > ip.c
> > > > > om>
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Note: the goto out looks fishy as well. The only go_idle
> > > > > implementor is tpm_crb and that can return a timeout as -ETIME,
> > > > > so it looks like it would then loop forever
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > > index 129f640424b7..ac7ebab6140c 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > > @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct
> > > > > tpm_chip
> > > > > *chip,
> > > > > unsigned int flags)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct tpm_output_header *header = (void *)buf;
> > > > > - int rc;
> > > > > + int rc, rc1;
> > > > > ssize_t len = 0;
> > > > > u32 count, ordinal;
> > > > > unsigned long stop;
> > > > > @@ -547,8 +547,8 @@ static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct
> > > > > tpm_chip
> > > > > *chip,
> > > > > dev_err(&chip->dev, "tpm2_commit_space: error
> > > > > %d\n", rc);
> > > > >
> > > > > out:
> > > > > - rc = tpm_go_idle(chip, flags);
> > > > > - if (rc)
> > > > > + rc1 = tpm_go_idle(chip, flags);
> > > > > + if (rc1)
> > > > > goto out;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (need_locality)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks James and sorry for latency (holiday season). Just a small
> > > > suggestion. I would just:
> > > >
> > > > if (tpm_go_idle(chip, flags))
> > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > That it doesn't solve the loop forever with no warning problem. If
> > > anything, I think the correct thing is probably
> > >
> > > rc1 = tpm_go_idle(chip, flags);
> > > if (rc1)
> > > dev_err(&chip->dev, "go idle failed with %d\n",
> > > rc1);
> > >
> > > so we log the problem and move on. If it is a timeout, it will
> > > likely show up on the next TPM operation. Since this is the only
> > > caller of tpm_go_idle(), I think all looping should be done inside
> > > that function, but we should probably wait for Tomas to comment
> > > since he wrote it.
> > >
> >
> > We've already fixed it, I forgot myself , we were drinking too much
> > :)
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10643565/
> > Not sure why it was dropped.
>
> Taking the trouble to gather error returns and then ignoring them is
> not a good practice (it's actually been the bane of filesystems for a
> while). If you want to do it this way, tpm_go_idle() needs to be a
> void function that emits an error message for every problem condition.
I'm happy to take a patch that adds logging in.
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-10 17:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-31 18:27 [PATCH] tpm: fix incorrect success returns from tpm_try_transmit() James Bottomley
2019-01-03 12:59 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-01-03 13:37 ` Winkler, Tomas
2019-01-03 15:03 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2019-01-03 15:23 ` James Bottomley
2019-01-03 15:34 ` Winkler, Tomas
2019-01-03 16:17 ` James Bottomley
2019-01-10 17:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
2019-01-10 17:16 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
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=20190110171658.GB6589@linux.intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomas.winkler@intel.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).