From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:53670 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932907AbdEVKYa (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2017 06:24:30 -0400 Subject: Patch "tpm_tis_core: Choose appropriate timeout for reading burstcount" has been added to the 4.11-stable tree To: Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, peter.huewe@infineon.com Cc: , From: Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 12:24:04 +0200 Message-ID: <1495448644195253@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled tpm_tis_core: Choose appropriate timeout for reading burstcount to the 4.11-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: tpm_tis_core-choose-appropriate-timeout-for-reading-burstcount.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.11 subdirectory. If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let know about it. >>From 302a6ad7fc77146191126a1f3e2c5d724fd72416 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexander Steffen Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:33:36 +0000 Subject: tpm_tis_core: Choose appropriate timeout for reading burstcount From: Alexander Steffen commit 302a6ad7fc77146191126a1f3e2c5d724fd72416 upstream. TIS v1.3 for TPM 1.2 and PTP for TPM 2.0 disagree about which timeout value applies to reading a valid burstcount. It is TIMEOUT_D according to TIS, but TIMEOUT_A according to PTP, so choose the appropriate value depending on whether we deal with a TPM 1.2 or a TPM 2.0. This is important since according to the PTP TIMEOUT_D is much smaller than TIMEOUT_A. So the previous implementation could run into timeouts with a TPM 2.0, even though the TPM was behaving perfectly fine. During tpm2_probe TIMEOUT_D will be used even with a TPM 2.0, because TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2 is not yet set. This is fine, since the timeout values will only be changed afterwards by tpm_get_timeouts. Until then TIS_TIMEOUT_D_MAX applies, which is large enough. Fixes: aec04cbdf723 ("tpm: TPM 2.0 FIFO Interface") Signed-off-by: Alexander Steffen Signed-off-by: Peter Huewe Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c @@ -160,8 +160,10 @@ static int get_burstcount(struct tpm_chi u32 value; /* wait for burstcount */ - /* which timeout value, spec has 2 answers (c & d) */ - stop = jiffies + chip->timeout_d; + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) + stop = jiffies + chip->timeout_a; + else + stop = jiffies + chip->timeout_d; do { rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_STS(priv->locality), &value); if (rc < 0) Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com are queue-4.11/tpm_tis_core-choose-appropriate-timeout-for-reading-burstcount.patch