From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25954C54FCC for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:31:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0967B2072D for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:31:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726024AbgDUUbJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:31:09 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:56240 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725930AbgDUUbJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:31:09 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03LK3FOM020019 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:31:08 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 30gfebxnbq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:31:08 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:30:21 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.195) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:30:18 +0100 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 03LKV2Md59900056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:31:02 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 400CEA405F; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:31:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06083A4054; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:31:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [9.80.193.120]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:31:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: work around status register bug in STMicroelectronics TPM From: Mimi Zohar To: Jarkko Sakkinen Cc: James Bottomley , Omar Sandoval , Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 16:31:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200421202520.GD46589@linux.intel.com> References: <6c55d7c1fb84e5bf2ace9f05ec816ef67bd873e1.1586990595.git.osandov@fb.com> <1586994699.3931.18.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20200416001605.GA673482@vader> <20200416002442.GB673482@vader> <1587060171.15329.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20200417235527.GB85230@linux.intel.com> <1587168748.5867.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20200420204641.GA14637@linux.intel.com> <1587421686.3493.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1587479764.5149.27.camel@linux.ibm.com> <20200421202520.GD46589@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 20042120-4275-0000-0000-000003C4257D X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 20042120-4276-0000-0000-000038D9AB2A Message-Id: <1587501060.5118.5.camel@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138,18.0.676 definitions=2020-04-21_08:2020-04-21,2020-04-21 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004210150 Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2020-04-21 at 23:25 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:36:04AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > On Mon, 2020-04-20 at 15:28 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Mon, 2020-04-20 at 23:46 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > But more seriously: Nayna Jain did a series of patches improving the > > > time it takes to poll the TPM for operations precisely because the TPM > > > PCR extend was going so slowly: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20180516055125.5685-1-nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ > > > > The original reason for us needing to improve the TPM performance was > > due to the kernel scheduler change.  Refer to commit a233a0289cf9 > > ("tpm: msleep() delays - replace with usleep_range() in i2c nuvoton > > driver").  That scheduler change prevented systems from booting. > >  Bisecting the kernel to figure out the problem wasn't very > > productive. > > > > At least any TPM changes that affect the TPM performance really need > > to take into account IMA requirements. > > Thanks Mimi. > > With my dynamic proposal it would work as it works now for system > where it worked anyway, and would fix the systems where timeouts > were too short. Sure, but please remember this thread started out addressing an STM TPM bug, not James' timeouts.  This part of the thread should be re- named. Mimi