Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: use default timeout value if chip reports it as zero

Maciej S. Szmigiero
2017-01-25T23:28:33Z

On 25.01.2017 23:58, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:26:44PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>> On 25.01.2017 21:09, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 02:42:29PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>> On 24.01.2017 13:01, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:23:55PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.01.2017 17:39, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16.01.2017 14:55, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:42:02AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:37:00PM +0100, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since commit 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM
>>>>>>>>>>>> access") Atmel 3203 TPM on ThinkPad X61S (TPM firmware version 13.9) no
>>>>>>>>>>>> longer works.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The initialization proceeds fine until we get and start using chip-reported
>>>>>>>>>>>> timeouts - and the chip reports C and D timeouts of zero.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that until commit 8e54caf407b98e ("tpm: Provide a generic
>>>>>>>>>>>> means to override the chip returned timeouts") we had actually let default
>>>>>>>>>>>> timeout values remain in this case, so let's bring back this behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>> make chips like Atmel 3203 work again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Use a common code that was introduced by that commit so a warning is
>>>>>>>>>>>> printed in this case and /sys/class/tpm/tpm*/timeouts correctly says the
>>>>>>>>>>>> timeouts aren't chip-original.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero <mail@maciej.szmigiero.name>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 1107d065fdf1 ("tpm_tis: Introduce intermediate layer for TPM access")
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's now applied to my master branch so if someone wants to
>>>>>>>>>> test it, it should be fairly easy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I decided to squash the rename commit to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be better to squash the rename commit into "fix iTPM probe via
>>>>>>>> probe_itpm() function" patch (if it isn't too late), since they touch the
>>>>>>>> same functionality?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can be renamed, modified and even dropped as long as it is in my
>>>>>>> master branch and I haven't sent pull request to James Morris.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch isn't present
>>>>>> in your pull request for 4.11.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I meant in previous message was that you squashed and "rename
>>>>>> TPM_TIS_ITPM_POSSIBLE to TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND" patch into "use default timeout
>>>>>> value if chip reports it as zero" patch while it was logically connected with
>>>>>> "fix iTPM probe via probe_itpm() function" patch instead (which now isn't present
>>>>>> at all in the tree).
>>>>>> Sorry if it wasn't 100% clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll probably send later on pull request with fixes for release content
>>>>> I can include that commit into that pull request. Does that work for
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it would be fine, thanks.
>>>
>>> It's now applied and pushed.
>>
>> Almost there: it looks like the last hunk of the patch is missing from
>> the commit.
>>
>>> /Jarkko
>>
>> Maciej
>
> Sorrya about that (too much multitasking lately). I had to do a bit of
> manual work to get it there. Now it should be good.

It looks right now, thanks.

> /Jarkko

Maciej