From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932543AbeCFICZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2018 03:02:25 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:57178 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932088AbeCFICV (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2018 03:02:21 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNSCANNABLE X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,430,1515484800"; d="scan'208";a="32737555" Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 10:02:15 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: "Winkler, Tomas" Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , "Usyskin, Alexander" , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 RESEND] tpm: add longer timeouts for creation commands. Message-ID: <20180306080159.GC3624@linux.intel.com> References: <20180304121205.16934-1-tomas.winkler@intel.com> <20180305125642.GA3425@linux.intel.com> <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9422E21E@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com> <20180305175912.GD5791@linux.intel.com> <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9422E568@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9422E568@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 06:04:56PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 01:09:09PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > enum tpm_duration { > > > > TPM_DURATION_DEFAULT = 2000, > > > > TPM_DURATION_LONG = 300000, > > > > }; > > > > > > > How is this aligned with the spec PTP spec? > > > > For TPM 2.0 that spec only partially defines durations for CCs and thus our > > look up table is already kind "flakky". In a sense that the default duration is > > upper limit for spec defined durations. > > The timeouts for LONG and MEDIUM is defined by the PTP spec, we need to maintain those as those effect the system. > The UNDEFINED and LONG LONG is the implementation choice we driver from empirical data we have so far. Where can be get this empirical data? You are not only adding 30s delay but also turning the 2s delay to 12s delay. IMHO we could very well use PTP LONG for all commands as the timeout. Why that would not work? /Jarkko