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_1 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 0FD1FC32754 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DD021873 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388496AbfHGVzb (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2019 17:55:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com ([209.85.208.66]:41581 "EHLO mail-ed1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730375AbfHGVza (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2019 17:55:30 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id p15so87941699eds.8 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:55:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5+wIUr/HaJM43d8fA/LrXEAYNKGeyhiwTGst6n7bnUA=; b=S+88qoc+g6wzj3hrt7y2qhbKUklpphZTMG42vG5nRN8vsXIq+AFp5ymx/j+2Nzs0+W 02oIVkUD0hIcLklJ655TtfJpqh2x66oy8r9hgH+1yNO9N4iEaCZdIF2u+QyBCII5YHyQ i/XiJWPgW1W46UgekDlqY4TszR+gwLezBoCf564ueVYrz17kKG4jC33VryVk45YnnQLZ bgb9DEiuQeLPqSsIBq4Eygx7hnq51P+Cs6nhwwyRoFDZnk0kQJRxjaoTVe4ddQKAFSYn 0k0P+XnvTe5zLfYrMwH2P09cm5VABhrKKyplwBQq+XWk4Wv5wCPW9KizThkRR7nusGNz l7Gw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWcQ2L3iMXgp+wjkD4qH5SShDh3ARRS0lYJ38i/1KNgXPY0biw4 bpqQD3RTONLXFHp2OK47XDpQPkjOjs0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyX+iMBVh4FhlK75KcTYyvggbCA98eMfzjqiwe5OZetGQgOOCgj+JXkLY3kETlxZO9TlFFxfQ== X-Received: by 2002:a50:c94b:: with SMTP id p11mr12276976edh.301.1565214928212; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shalem.localdomain (84-106-84-65.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl. [84.106.84.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 11sm12681eje.81.2019.08.07.14.55.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 14:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 5.3 boot regression caused by 5.3 TPM changes To: Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Matthew Garrett , Jarkko Sakkinen , Peter Huewe , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-integrity , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-efi References: From: Hans de Goede Message-ID: <259b18e9-6ccb-7a96-42f2-360dda488698@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 23:55:26 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org Hi, On 05-08-19 18:01, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 19:12, Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 04-08-19 17:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> Hi Hans, >>> >>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 13:00, Hans de Goede 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