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=-16.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 9811DC11F68 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 11:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD5E61420 for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 11:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231969AbhGBL7u (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2021 07:59:50 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53518 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231956AbhGBL7u (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2021 07:59:50 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8A2F6141D; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 11:57:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1625227038; bh=VlIqcg4eZrvt1YEEJOeAcdXh9hGltDK283qbsdMCAE8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=elS7eWnh5rGuo19siFj1TZ5jl3y91lFAtciBOnK8TgQEhRQ2HxkYJe/OiQf5RfOVM rrO/aKhJRie7ceOsWqn+JEkBH5j6IIuJMUrYIt7tlW6vxsJWMDJfFShi9AQTYVOGgK iei8jY44cosFsJrZswiVI4bR7E+N18XSB7gcGnHj26ErfbX+CGb4YV1v5Y9KQISVHI /jqiVM+dCB2LhZ90CuT7w5rfuX0u29um1p8xKJUfkDMQpvGLfYSZdpFMUP1g/MfSRO i2ixjS93GOUfLdflrsWRy078gf/T99/0JvLdxVKLIBm6d8TN4yoQfqXmcaw/p3c8Sj JZlytHfoqry0A== Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 14:57:15 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Hao Wu Cc: Shrihari Kalkar , Seungyeop Han , Anish Jhaveri , peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Paul Menzel , Ken Goldman , zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, why2jjj.linux@gmail.com, Hamza Attak , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, arnd@arndb.de, Nayna , James Bottomley Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix ATMEL TPM crash caused by too frequent queries Message-ID: <20210702115715.gyqfdk6ksgqzeenm@kernel.org> References: <20210624053321.861-1-hao.wu@rubrik.com> <20210630042205.30051-1-hao.wu@rubrik.com> <20210702063555.q2phirfv7wxc6axu@kernel.org> <939BC11F-0905-4777-9DD7-630FC28ED205@rubrik.com> <20210702074518.64gyockmqrphbkqx@kernel.org> <559CEFEB-EE60-464B-A847-9E1C3B5F5BC4@rubrik.com> <20210702084239.svkmfw7r3y5auus3@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20210702084239.svkmfw7r3y5auus3@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 11:42:39AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:59:18AM -0700, Hao Wu wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 2021, at 12:45 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 12:33:15AM -0700, Hao Wu wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> On Jul 1, 2021, at 11:35 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 09:22:05PM -0700, Hao Wu wrote: > > >>>> This is a fix for the ATMEL TPM crash bug reported in > > >>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-integrity/patch/20200926223150.109645-1-hao.wu@rubrik.com/ > > >>>> > > >>>> According to the discussions in the original thread, > > >>>> we don't want to revert the timeout of wait_for_tpm_stat > > >>>> for non-ATMEL chips, which brings back the performance cost. > > >>>> For investigation and analysis of why wait_for_tpm_stat > > >>>> caused the issue, and how the regression was introduced, > > >>>> please read the original thread above. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thus the proposed fix here is to only revert the timeout > > >>>> for ATMEL chips by checking the vendor ID. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Hao Wu > > >>>> Fixes: 9f3fc7bcddcb ("tpm: replace msleep() with usleep_range() in TPM 1.2/2.0 generic drivers") > > >>> > > >>> Fixes tag should be before SOB. > > >>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> Test Plan: > > >>>> - Run fixed kernel with ATMEL TPM chips and see crash > > >>>> has been fixed. > > >>>> - Run fixed kernel with non-ATMEL TPM chips, and confirm > > >>>> the timeout has not been changed. > > >>>> > > >>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 9 ++++++++- > > >>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++-- > > >>>> include/linux/tpm.h | 2 ++ > > >>>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > >>>> index 283f78211c3a..bc6aa7f9e119 100644 > > >>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > >>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > >>>> @@ -42,7 +42,9 @@ enum tpm_timeout { > > >>>> TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US = 300, /* usecs */ > > >>>> TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL = 1, /* msecs */ > > >>>> TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN = 100, /* usecs */ > > >>>> - TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX = 500 /* usecs */ > > >>>> + TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX = 500, /* usecs */ > > >>> > > >>> What is this change? > > >> Need to add the tailing comma > > >> > > >>> > > >>>> + TPM_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT = 500, /* usecs */ > > >>>> + TPM_ATML_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT = 15000 /* usecs */ > > >>>> }; > > >>>> > > >>>> /* TPM addresses */ > > >>>> @@ -189,6 +191,11 @@ static inline void tpm_msleep(unsigned int delay_msec) > > >>>> delay_msec * 1000); > > >>>> }; > > >>>> > > >>>> +static inline void tpm_usleep(unsigned int delay_usec) > > >>>> +{ > > >>>> + usleep_range(delay_usec - TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US, delay_usec); > > >>>> +}; > > >>> > > >>> Please remove this, and open code. > > >> Ok, will do > > >> > > >>>> + > > >>>> int tpm_chip_start(struct tpm_chip *chip); > > >>>> void tpm_chip_stop(struct tpm_chip *chip); > > >>>> struct tpm_chip *tpm_find_get_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip); > > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c > > >>>> index 55b9d3965ae1..9ddd4edfe1c2 100644 > > >>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c > > >>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c > > >>>> @@ -80,8 +80,12 @@ static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask, > > >>>> } > > >>>> } else { > > >>>> do { > > >>>> - usleep_range(TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN, > > >>>> - TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX); > > >>>> + if (chip->timeout_wait_stat && > > >>>> + chip->timeout_wait_stat >= TPM_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT) { > > >>>> + tpm_usleep((unsigned int)(chip->timeout_wait_stat)); > > >>>> + } else { > > >>>> + tpm_usleep((unsigned int)(TPM_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT)); > > >>>> + } > > >>> > > >>> Invalid use of braces. Please read > > >>> > > >>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.13/process/coding-style.html > > >>> > > >>> Why do you have to use this field conditionally anyway? Why doesn't > > >>> it always contain a legit value? > > >> The field is legit now, but doesn’t hurt to do addition check for robustness > > >> to ensure no crash ? Just in case the value is updated below TPM_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT ? > > >> > > >> Can remove if we think it is not needed. > > > > > > A simple question: why you use it conditionally? Can the field contain invalid value? > > > > > There are two checks > > - chip->timeout_wait_stat >= TPM_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT > > It could be invalid when future developer set it to some value less than `TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN`, > > and crash the usleep > > I don't understand this. Why you don't set to appropriate value? What you should do, is to define two fields: - tpm_timeout_min - tpm_timeout_max And initialize these to TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN and TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX. Then fixup those for Atmel (with a simple if-statement, switch-case is overkill). The way you work out things right now is broken: 1. Before for non-Atmel: usleep_range(100, 500) 2. After for non-Atmel: usleep_range(200, 500) I.e. the patch changes code semantically that it should not touch in the first place. /Jarkko