All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leendert van Doorn <leendert@paramecium.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
	Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com" <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>,
	"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" 
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"peterhuewe@gmx.de" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
	"tpmdd@selhorst.net" <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
	"patrickc@us.ibm.com" <patrickc@us.ibm.com>,
	"Safford, David (GE Global Research, US)" <david.safford@ge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send() performance
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:08:51 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <694703AB-68E1-4026-937C-61DBBE08DB4B@paramecium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1511714261.4361.13.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hmm, this is almost 20 years old code (

I think the original code did a burst write and didn't check for error conditions until the very last byte write. I seem to remember that there was some text in the original standard to that effect (this may have gone back as far as IBM's ESS spec).

The current code does check for error conditions after each write byte(s) so I don't think there is any reason for this anymore. Changing the while condition to count < len and setting burstcnt = min_t(int, burstcnt, len - count) and remove the tpm_tis_write8/wait_for_tpm_stat/tpm_tis_status clauses after the while loop should be sufficient.

	Leendert

On 11/26/17, 8:37 AM, "Mimi Zohar" <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    [Cc'ing Dave and Leendeert]
    
    Hi Jarkko,
    
    > > It seems that the last byte was sent from the beginning (27084ef
    > > [PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips,), does anyone
    > > remember the reason ?
    > 
    > Sent from the beginning?
    
    I went through the commit logs to see if any of the patch descriptions
    have an explanation for sending the last byte separately. Based on
    commit 27084efee0c3 "[PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM
    chips", it seems it's been there since the beginning.
    
    Dave, Leendert, Do either of you remember the reason for
    tpm_tis_send_data() sending the last byte separately?
    
    thanks,
    
    Mimi
    
    
    

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: leendert@paramecium.org (Leendert van Doorn)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 2/4] tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send() performance
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:08:51 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <694703AB-68E1-4026-937C-61DBBE08DB4B@paramecium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1511714261.4361.13.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hmm, this is almost 20 years old code (

I think the original code did a burst write and didn't check for error conditions until the very last byte write. I seem to remember that there was some text in the original standard to that effect (this may have gone back as far as IBM's ESS spec).

The current code does check for error conditions after each write byte(s) so I don't think there is any reason for this anymore. Changing the while condition to count < len and setting burstcnt = min_t(int, burstcnt, len - count) and remove the tpm_tis_write8/wait_for_tpm_stat/tpm_tis_status clauses after the while loop should be sufficient.

	Leendert

???On 11/26/17, 8:37 AM, "Mimi Zohar" <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    [Cc'ing Dave and Leendeert]
    
    Hi Jarkko,
    
    > > It seems that the last byte was sent from the beginning (27084ef
    > > [PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips,), does anyone
    > > remember the reason ?
    > 
    > Sent from the beginning?
    
    I went through the commit logs to see if any of the patch descriptions
    have an explanation for sending the last byte separately. Based on
    commit 27084efee0c3 "[PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM
    chips", it seems it's been there since the beginning.
    
    Dave, Leendert, Do either of you remember the reason for
    tpm_tis_send_data() sending the last byte separately?
    
    thanks,
    
    Mimi
    
    
    

????{.n?+???????+%???????\x17??w??{.n?+????{??????????v?^?)????w*\x1fjg???\x1e???????j??\a??G??????\f???j:+v???w?j?m?????\x1e??\x1e?w?????f???h?????????

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Leendert van Doorn <leendert@paramecium.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
	Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com" <Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com>,
	"linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"peterhuewe@gmx.de" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
	"tpmdd@selhorst.net" <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
	"patrickc@us.ibm.com" <patrickc@us.ibm.com>,
	"Safford, David (GE Global Research, US)" <david.safford@ge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send() performance
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 07:08:51 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <694703AB-68E1-4026-937C-61DBBE08DB4B@paramecium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1511714261.4361.13.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Hmm, this is almost 20 years old code (

I think the original code did a burst write and didn't check for error conditions until the very last byte write. I seem to remember that there was some text in the original standard to that effect (this may have gone back as far as IBM's ESS spec).

The current code does check for error conditions after each write byte(s) so I don't think there is any reason for this anymore. Changing the while condition to count < len and setting burstcnt = min_t(int, burstcnt, len - count) and remove the tpm_tis_write8/wait_for_tpm_stat/tpm_tis_status clauses after the while loop should be sufficient.

	Leendert

On 11/26/17, 8:37 AM, "Mimi Zohar" <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

    [Cc'ing Dave and Leendeert]
    
    Hi Jarkko,
    
    > > It seems that the last byte was sent from the beginning (27084ef
    > > [PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM chips,), does anyone
    > > remember the reason ?
    > 
    > Sent from the beginning?
    
    I went through the commit logs to see if any of the patch descriptions
    have an explanation for sending the last byte separately. Based on
    commit 27084efee0c3 "[PATCH] tpm: driver for next generation TPM
    chips", it seems it's been there since the beginning.
    
    Dave, Leendert, Do either of you remember the reason for
    tpm_tis_send_data() sending the last byte separately?
    
    thanks,
    
    Mimi
    
    
    

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-27  7:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-10-17 20:32 [PATCH v4 0/4] additional TPM performance improvements Nayna Jain
2017-10-17 20:32 ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-17 20:32 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] tpm: move wait_for_tpm_stat() to respective driver files Nayna Jain
2017-10-17 20:32   ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-19 14:21   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-19 14:21     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-19 17:00     ` Alexander.Steffen
2017-10-19 17:00       ` Alexander.Steffen at infineon.com
2017-10-20  8:56       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-20  8:56         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-23 13:32         ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-23 13:32           ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-23 13:32           ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-24 13:45           ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-24 13:45             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-17 20:32 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] tpm: ignore burstcount to improve tpm_tis send() performance Nayna Jain
2017-10-17 20:32   ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-18 15:25   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-18 15:25     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-19 14:23   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-19 14:23     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-20 14:42   ` Alexander.Steffen
2017-10-20 14:42     ` Alexander.Steffen at infineon.com
2017-10-20 18:02     ` Ken Goldman
2017-10-20 18:02       ` Ken Goldman
2017-10-23  2:57     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-23  2:57       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-11-07 18:29     ` Nayna Jain
2017-11-07 18:29       ` Nayna Jain
2017-11-07 18:29       ` Nayna Jain
2017-11-08 11:32       ` Alexander.Steffen
2017-11-08 11:32         ` Alexander.Steffen at infineon.com
2017-11-16 14:34       ` Alexander.Steffen
2017-11-16 14:34         ` Alexander.Steffen at infineon.com
2017-11-22  6:52       ` Alexander.Steffen
2017-11-22  6:52         ` Alexander.Steffen at infineon.com
2017-11-23 14:47         ` Nayna Jain
2017-11-23 14:47           ` Nayna Jain
2017-11-23 16:19           ` Alexander.Steffen
2017-11-23 16:19             ` Alexander.Steffen at infineon.com
2017-11-26 15:22           ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-11-26 15:22             ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-11-26 16:37             ` Mimi Zohar
2017-11-26 16:37               ` Mimi Zohar
2017-11-27  7:08               ` Leendert van Doorn [this message]
2017-11-27  7:08                 ` Leendert van Doorn
2017-11-27  7:08                 ` Leendert van Doorn
2017-11-27 13:22                 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-11-27 13:22                   ` Mimi Zohar
2017-11-27 13:22                   ` Mimi Zohar
2017-11-28 20:19                 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-11-28 20:19                   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-11-28 20:19                   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-17 20:32 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] tpm: reduce tpm polling delay in tpm_tis_core Nayna Jain
2017-10-17 20:32   ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-18 15:24   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-18 15:24     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-19 14:22     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-19 14:22       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-17 20:32 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] tpm: use tpm_msleep() value as max delay Nayna Jain
2017-10-17 20:32   ` Nayna Jain
2017-10-19 14:22   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-19 14:22     ` Jarkko Sakkinen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=694703AB-68E1-4026-937C-61DBBE08DB4B@paramecium.org \
    --to=leendert@paramecium.org \
    --cc=Alexander.Steffen@infineon.com \
    --cc=david.safford@ge.com \
    --cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=patrickc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
    --cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.