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 3F5F533DB; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:45:26 +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=1743705927; cv=none; b=rsrNVpCzXO80glrW8RLC46rJMiaTTfqDRyPivk0Gz/lxq7OjOja2+eQBv+pHesYiCMkJnfFQSYU1eWv6JMVyn3VvJQi1PRTaFmajwrhKoajA/IFQsqxXOEFjUD8nF77bx9mIL4Yq4Rinrd1a94AJsXpkCewNWvbfdquONHdicZY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743705927; c=relaxed/simple; bh=9dNL4pCAgs9jbTVHrEb3W0UBUnJOcvasmy+RkmrFufw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=htIdgYa0l8qphVbaTMYd3p7qpWZrzJCT3qfqtrS7pCqnQAzPr+hoRk01VSpQzXTKXqn8SZ4HMJ4G5l/qK4EdqB7Xlqa4dLqdRwhtgo3tojFV588+ECCYn45g10kGzunuLxGV2Y4UOuhsU1A8PbTS1yjknUgenMQzWMnAqTA/elA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EoVO9pIi; 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="EoVO9pIi" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 127B0C4CEE3; Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:45:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1743705926; bh=9dNL4pCAgs9jbTVHrEb3W0UBUnJOcvasmy+RkmrFufw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EoVO9pIiR9TUooL4uFUE02EkUiUdq607X5Aa6FNRZCnS145l/SrDPOU/U5QSsCvQB xyzb8MyRxlF27aBcsgN8Htgu+hbNIMBW5blkh7z8IRaH051cdOa/SHF5xGzJ7xdYOv v2bTGFJShBsgODHXvBlW66eB4QoNd7iMIDNVJ8/o1SBRnw0Y+D6Q0YH63SG1uzfDHB 6LMUY0t4GNsbv2d94BGLCCLFZHAINBeaJnJBEDtzWawp1RXOxNbRDVbMXtk3dZ7JmC UUaX7fsvNc4F5+2UtALuZVp9+J6XKpzZlUY42Wdx2NMuZ5i0bLhceY9lUKUz/o3bIZ bn4DzaSh1x8Rg== Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 21:45:21 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jonathan McDowell Cc: Michal Suchanek , Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: tis: Increase the default for timeouts B and C Message-ID: References: <20250402172134.7751-1-msuchanek@suse.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:45:40PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 07:21:30PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > With some Infineon chips the timeouts in tpm_tis_send_data (both B and > > C) can reach up to about 2250 ms. > > > > Extend the timeout duration to accommodate this. > > The problem here is the bump of timeout_c is going to interact poorly with > the Infineon errata workaround, as now we'll wait 4s instead of 200ms to > detect the stuck status change. > > (Also shouldn't timeout_c already end up as 750ms, as it's > max(TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_C), and TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT is 750 vs 200 > for TPM2_TIMEOUT_C? That doesn't seem to be borne out by your logs, nor my > results.) Just noticed that the commit did not end up having fixes etc. tags: https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/linux-tpmdd.git/commit/?id=de9e33df7762abbfc2a1568291f2c3a3154c6a9d Should we forward to stable? BR, Jarkko