From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C166A256C99 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739208779; cv=none; b=ppDw+SDW9ZWsvtKELl2qsCeVMiYXWMNsR4CUdrX5mVf0hFMGx1pOx8Z8jbY72sZiX5wqxocxDruzYypx//N3eTL4wzFpo9DitwB6poD5aCqUrln3aXmkL3ZZQJSrxEsukaN9rgtLS7ijbvlImDnxGJIsfCx9gtsBPqkA/kjyYLc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739208779; c=relaxed/simple; bh=In8FWysFKKKSXvdPAw1N4X9ryaHzVVF9VwqWQJTNbY0=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=UzCnowJpNaMMkJGYq312X0BQBdAHMLvYN5con2CmMqmihkjlTJFh3d/T5qEkkwnikfmsY49yRscuECF0+Qmq/7/oW8GnEoINHUUhU0RKiLAUB9QM846mrAIV0R2YPtd8O5ibLOIyg+YiG8CtHtFGIDeZ8QllxXWEF6BfAZ31stA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KAe81Z+b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="KAe81Z+b" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EC16C4CEE5; Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:32:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1739208779; bh=In8FWysFKKKSXvdPAw1N4X9ryaHzVVF9VwqWQJTNbY0=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KAe81Z+bSxNoUldvPBIXrVF1QidWzF0pApzHNW8bLtwIwSzjXKt5jbWg3eKKW8EOc bjqyWrHy6Hdxq122iRvPQi08iKW6jUf2RaGyGfMKcuH7sNkFsBxCj2t4+zPGHdnU5V JrQaWmDbKRvhPd8/IBP+8gJbwYPzBJG8JGZ3n4xISwA03PjIU6sGmilObqLF6K81A6 T3CVz9JlQBHVWGGbaJEE+6ZWrL+WJk5jVf26DYZmVy7yzUyn3pAqYGn9VqeIhZPgpF o1ym1wk6vRz5cZhyiAk0eMxzfNNw8uqPmYiw+SH/TWOTIyb5DEy+rswTpFP3DCNl7P NzjhWYnUZ3atg== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 19:32:53 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: TPM operation times out (very rarely) From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: "Jonathan McDowell" Cc: =?utf-8?q?Michal_Such=C3=A1nek?= , X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.1 References: In-Reply-To: On Mon Feb 10, 2025 at 6:18 PM EET, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > Who then handles the ERESTARTSYS though? Part of the issues we've seen > is the failure happens in a context save or load, which is all within > the kernel rather than directly under the control of userspace. I'm > guessing the HMAC changes are likely to hit similar problems. I think > some level of timeout improvement in tpm_transmit is appropriate, if we > can work out what it should be. Right I get what you mean, not all transmits initiate from syscalls And obviously this can happen without hmac too with tpmrm0. Hmm... so I'm open for a patch that radically simplifies the state change timeouts, i.e. sort of part of that old patch. BR, Jarkko