From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 5.3 boot regression caused by 5.3 TPM changes
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 23:55:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <259b18e9-6ccb-7a96-42f2-360dda488698@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKv+Gu9nEM5D877YD+N8tSN0sON6rR3f+Tc-9bg5u==+9Q2meA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On 05-08-19 18:01, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 04-08-19 17:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> Hi Hans,
>>>
>>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 13:00, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> While testing 5.3-rc2 on an Irbis TW90 Intel Cherry Trail based
>>>> tablet I noticed that it does not boot on this device.
>>>>
>>>> A git bisect points to commit 166a2809d65b ("tpm: Don't duplicate
>>>> events from the final event log in the TCG2 log")
>>>>
>>>> And I can confirm that reverting just that single commit makes
>>>> the TW90 boot again.
>>>>
>>>> This machine uses AptIO firmware with base component versions
>>>> of: UEFI 2.4 PI 1.3. I've tried to reproduce the problem on
>>>> a Teclast X80 Pro which is also CHT based and also uses AptIO
>>>> firmware with the same base components. But it does not reproduce
>>>> there. Neither does the problem reproduce on a CHT tablet using
>>>> InsideH20 based firmware.
>>>>
>>>> Note that these devices have a software/firmware TPM-2.0
>>>> implementation, they do not have an actual TPM chip.
>>>>
>>>> Comparing TPM firmware setting between the 2 AptIO based
>>>> tablets the settings are identical, but the troublesome
>>>> TW90 does have some more setting then the X80, it has
>>>> the following settings which are not shown on the X80:
>>>>
>>>> Active PCR banks: SHA-1 (read only)
>>>> Available PCR banks: SHA-1,SHA256 (read only)
>>>> TPM2.0 UEFI SPEC version: TCG_2 (other possible setting: TCG_1_2
>>>> Physical Presence SPEC ver: 1.2 (other possible setting: 1.3)
>>>>
>>>> I have the feeling that at least the first 2 indicate that
>>>> the previous win10 installation has actually used the
>>>> TPM, where as on the X80 the TPM is uninitialized.
>>>> Note this is just a hunch I could be completely wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I would be happy to run any commands to try and debug this
>>>> or to build a kernel with some patches to gather more info.
>>>>
>>>> Note any kernel patches to printk some debug stuff need
>>>> to be based on 5.3 with 166a2809d65b reverted, without that
>>>> reverted the device will not boot, and thus I cannot collect
>>>> logs without it reverted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you booting a 64-bit kernel on 32-bit firmware?
>>
>> Yes you are right, I must say that this is somewhat surprising
>> most Cherry Trail devices do use 64 bit firmware (where as Bay Trail
>> typically uses 32 bit). But I just checked efibootmgr output and it
>> says it is booting: \EFI\FEDORA\SHIMIA32.EFI so yeah 32 bit firmware.
>>
>> Recent Fedora releases take care of this so seamlessly I did not
>> even realize...
>>
>
> OK, so we'll have to find out how this patch affects 64-bit code
> running on 32-bit firmware. The only EFI call in that patch is
> get_config_table(), which is not actually a EFI boot service call but
> a EFI stub helper that parses the config table array in the EFI system
> table.
Ok, the problem indeed is the new get_efi_config_table() helper, it
does not make any calls, but it does interpret some structs which
have different sized members depending on if the firmware is 32 or 64 bit.
I've prepared a patch fixing this which I will send out after this mail.
Regards,
Hans
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-07 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-04 10:00 5.3 boot regression caused by 5.3 TPM changes Hans de Goede
2019-08-04 15:33 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-08-04 16:12 ` Hans de Goede
2019-08-05 16:01 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-08-07 19:58 ` Hans de Goede
2019-08-07 20:13 ` Hans de Goede
2019-08-07 20:40 ` Hans de Goede
2019-08-07 21:55 ` Hans de Goede [this message]
[not found] ` <0d5bbfe6-a95e-987e-b436-83f754d044ac@canonical.com>
2019-08-06 19:27 ` Hans de Goede
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=259b18e9-6ccb-7a96-42f2-360dda488698@redhat.com \
--to=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).