Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] tpm: add update_durations class op to allow override of chip supplied values

[Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>]

On Wed Oct 02 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:27:32AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>> We've run into a case where a customer has an STM TPM 1.2 chip
>> (version 1.2.8.28), that is getting into an inconsistent state and
>> they end up getting tpm transmit errors.  In really old tpm code this
>> wasn't seen because the code that grabbed the duration values from the
>> chip could fail silently, and would proceed to just use default values
>> and move forward. More recent code though successfully gets the
>> duration values from the chip, and using those values this particular
>> chip version gets into the state seen by the customer.
>>
>> The idea with this patchset is to provide a facility like the
>> update_timeouts operation to allow the override of chip supplied
>> values.
>>
>> changes from v3:
>>     * Assign value to version when tpm1_getcap is successful for TPM 1.1 device
>>       not when it fails.
>>
>> changes from v2:
>>     * Added patch 1/3
>>     * Rework tpm_tis_update_durations to make use of new version structs
>>       and pull tpm1_getcap calls out of loop.
>>
>> changes from v1:
>>     * Remove unneeded newline
>>     * Formatting cleanups
>>     * Change tpm_tis_update_durations to be a void function, and
>>       use chip->duration_adjusted to track whether adjustment was
>>       made.
>>
>> Jarkko Sakkinen (1):
>>       tpm: Remove duplicate code from caps_show() in tpm-sysfs.c
>>
>> Jerry Snitselaar (2):
>>       tpm: provide a way to override the chip returned durations
>>       tpm_tis: override durations for STM tpm with firmware 1.2.8.28
>>
>>
>
>I applied to my master branch.
>
>Probably hard to get wide testing given the "niche" case when the
>issue happens. Should be sufficient that the commonc case still
>works.
>
>/Jarkko

Yeah, it is a pain. The people with the problem systems tested an
earlier version of Alexey's patches. I have a system with a different
rev STM device, so I did some testing with a modified patch that keyed
off that revision, but it will be hard to get it wide exposure.