Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Dan Williams]

Hi Greg,

Please drop the:

   Fixes: 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")

...tag. I had asked Jarkko to do that here:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAPcyv4h60z889bfbiwvVhsj6MxmOPiPY8ZuPB_skxkZx-N+OGw@mail.gmail.com/

...but it didn't get picked up.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:37 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
>
>     tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init
>
> to the 5.4-stable tree which can be found at:
>     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
>
> The filename of the patch is:
>      tpm_tis-reserve-chip-for-duration-of-tpm_tis_core_init.patch
> and it can be found in the queue-5.4 subdirectory.
>
> If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>
>
> From 21df4a8b6018b842d4db181a8b24166006bad3cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:54:55 -0700
> Subject: tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init
>
> From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
>
> commit 21df4a8b6018b842d4db181a8b24166006bad3cd upstream.
>
> Instead of repeatedly calling tpm_chip_start/tpm_chip_stop when
> issuing commands to the tpm during initialization, just reserve the
> chip after wait_startup, and release it when we are ready to call
> tpm_chip_register.
>
> Cc: Christian Bundy <christianbundy@fraction.io>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> Cc: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
> Fixes: a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()")
> Fixes: 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")
> Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c |   35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -899,13 +899,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
>
>         if (wait_startup(chip, 0) != 0) {
>                 rc = -ENODEV;
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_start;
>         }
>
>         /* Take control of the TPM's interrupt hardware and shut it off */
>         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
>         if (rc < 0)
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_start;
>
>         intmask |= TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT | TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT |
>                    TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT | TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT;
> @@ -914,21 +914,21 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
>
>         rc = tpm_chip_start(chip);
>         if (rc)
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_start;
> +
>         rc = tpm2_probe(chip);
> -       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
>         if (rc)
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_probe;
>
>         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_DID_VID(0), &vendor);
>         if (rc < 0)
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_probe;
>
>         priv->manufacturer_id = vendor;
>
>         rc = tpm_tis_read8(priv, TPM_RID(0), &rid);
>         if (rc < 0)
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_probe;
>
>         dev_info(dev, "%s TPM (device-id 0x%X, rev-id %d)\n",
>                  (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ? "2.0" : "1.2",
> @@ -937,13 +937,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
>         probe = probe_itpm(chip);
>         if (probe < 0) {
>                 rc = -ENODEV;
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_probe;
>         }
>
>         /* Figure out the capabilities */
>         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INTF_CAPS(priv->locality), &intfcaps);
>         if (rc < 0)
> -               goto out_err;
> +               goto err_probe;
>
>         dev_dbg(dev, "TPM interface capabilities (0x%x):\n",
>                 intfcaps);
> @@ -977,10 +977,9 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
>                 if (tpm_get_timeouts(chip)) {
>                         dev_err(dev, "Could not get TPM timeouts and durations\n");
>                         rc = -ENODEV;
> -                       goto out_err;
> +                       goto err_probe;
>                 }
>
> -               tpm_chip_start(chip);
>                 chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
>                 if (irq) {
>                         tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, IRQF_SHARED,
> @@ -991,18 +990,20 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
>                 } else {
>                         tpm_tis_probe_irq(chip, intmask);
>                 }
> -               tpm_chip_stop(chip);
>         }
>
> +       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> +
>         rc = tpm_chip_register(chip);
>         if (rc)
> -               goto out_err;
> -
> -       if (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL)
> -               chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false);
> +               goto err_start;
>
>         return 0;
> -out_err:
> +
> +err_probe:
> +       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> +
> +err_start:
>         if ((chip->ops != NULL) && (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL))
>                 chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false);
>
>
>
> Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from jsnitsel@redhat.com are
>
> queue-5.4/iommu-fix-kasan-use-after-free-in-iommu_insert_resv_region.patch
> queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-fix-dmar-pte-read-access-not-set-error.patch
> queue-5.4/iommu-set-group-default-domain-before-creating-direct-mappings.patch
> queue-5.4/tpm_tis-reserve-chip-for-duration-of-tpm_tis_core_init.patch
> queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-allocate-reserved-region-for-isa-with-correct-permission.patch
> queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-set-isa-bridge-reserved-region-as-relaxable.patch

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

Hi,

It is getting done on the PR. Hold on for testing and I'll send the
PR later today.

/Jarkko

On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 11:46 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Please drop the:
> 
>    Fixes: 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")
> 
> ...tag. I had asked Jarkko to do that here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAPcyv4h60z889bfbiwvVhsj6MxmOPiPY8ZuPB_skxkZx-N+OGw@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> ...but it didn't get picked up.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:37 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > 
> >     tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init
> > 
> > to the 5.4-stable tree which can be found at:
> >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> > 
> > The filename of the patch is:
> >      tpm_tis-reserve-chip-for-duration-of-tpm_tis_core_init.patch
> > and it can be found in the queue-5.4 subdirectory.
> > 
> > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> > please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
> > 
> > 
> > From 21df4a8b6018b842d4db181a8b24166006bad3cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:54:55 -0700
> > Subject: tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init
> > 
> > From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> > 
> > commit 21df4a8b6018b842d4db181a8b24166006bad3cd upstream.
> > 
> > Instead of repeatedly calling tpm_chip_start/tpm_chip_stop when
> > issuing commands to the tpm during initialization, just reserve the
> > chip after wait_startup, and release it when we are ready to call
> > tpm_chip_register.
> > 
> > Cc: Christian Bundy <christianbundy@fraction.io>
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
> > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > Cc: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
> > Fixes: a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()")
> > Fixes: 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")
> > Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c |   35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > @@ -899,13 +899,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> > 
> >         if (wait_startup(chip, 0) != 0) {
> >                 rc = -ENODEV;
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_start;
> >         }
> > 
> >         /* Take control of the TPM's interrupt hardware and shut it off */
> >         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
> >         if (rc < 0)
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_start;
> > 
> >         intmask |= TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT | TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT |
> >                    TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT | TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT;
> > @@ -914,21 +914,21 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> > 
> >         rc = tpm_chip_start(chip);
> >         if (rc)
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_start;
> > +
> >         rc = tpm2_probe(chip);
> > -       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> >         if (rc)
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_probe;
> > 
> >         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_DID_VID(0), &vendor);
> >         if (rc < 0)
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_probe;
> > 
> >         priv->manufacturer_id = vendor;
> > 
> >         rc = tpm_tis_read8(priv, TPM_RID(0), &rid);
> >         if (rc < 0)
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_probe;
> > 
> >         dev_info(dev, "%s TPM (device-id 0x%X, rev-id %d)\n",
> >                  (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ? "2.0" : "1.2",
> > @@ -937,13 +937,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> >         probe = probe_itpm(chip);
> >         if (probe < 0) {
> >                 rc = -ENODEV;
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_probe;
> >         }
> > 
> >         /* Figure out the capabilities */
> >         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INTF_CAPS(priv->locality), &intfcaps);
> >         if (rc < 0)
> > -               goto out_err;
> > +               goto err_probe;
> > 
> >         dev_dbg(dev, "TPM interface capabilities (0x%x):\n",
> >                 intfcaps);
> > @@ -977,10 +977,9 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> >                 if (tpm_get_timeouts(chip)) {
> >                         dev_err(dev, "Could not get TPM timeouts and durations\n");
> >                         rc = -ENODEV;
> > -                       goto out_err;
> > +                       goto err_probe;
> >                 }
> > 
> > -               tpm_chip_start(chip);
> >                 chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
> >                 if (irq) {
> >                         tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, IRQF_SHARED,
> > @@ -991,18 +990,20 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> >                 } else {
> >                         tpm_tis_probe_irq(chip, intmask);
> >                 }
> > -               tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> >         }
> > 
> > +       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> > +
> >         rc = tpm_chip_register(chip);
> >         if (rc)
> > -               goto out_err;
> > -
> > -       if (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL)
> > -               chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false);
> > +               goto err_start;
> > 
> >         return 0;
> > -out_err:
> > +
> > +err_probe:
> > +       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> > +
> > +err_start:
> >         if ((chip->ops != NULL) && (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL))
> >                 chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false);
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from jsnitsel@redhat.com are
> > 
> > queue-5.4/iommu-fix-kasan-use-after-free-in-iommu_insert_resv_region.patch
> > queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-fix-dmar-pte-read-access-not-set-error.patch
> > queue-5.4/iommu-set-group-default-domain-before-creating-direct-mappings.patch
> > queue-5.4/tpm_tis-reserve-chip-for-duration-of-tpm_tis_core_init.patch
> > queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-allocate-reserved-region-for-isa-with-correct-permission.patch
> > queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-set-isa-bridge-reserved-region-as-relaxable.patch

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

Dan, please also test the branch and tell if other patches are needed.
I'm a bit blind with this as I don't have direct access to the faulting
hardware. Thanks. [*]

[*] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/12

/Jarkko

On Fri, 2019-12-27 at 08:05 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> It is getting done on the PR. Hold on for testing and I'll send the
> PR later today.
> 
> /Jarkko
> 
> On Mon, 2019-12-23 at 11:46 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > Please drop the:
> > 
> >    Fixes: 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")
> > 
> > ...tag. I had asked Jarkko to do that here:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAPcyv4h60z889bfbiwvVhsj6MxmOPiPY8ZuPB_skxkZx-N+OGw@mail.gmail.com/
> > 
> > ...but it didn't get picked up.
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 9:37 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
> > > 
> > >     tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init
> > > 
> > > to the 5.4-stable tree which can be found at:
> > >     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
> > > 
> > > The filename of the patch is:
> > >      tpm_tis-reserve-chip-for-duration-of-tpm_tis_core_init.patch
> > > and it can be found in the queue-5.4 subdirectory.
> > > 
> > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
> > > please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > From 21df4a8b6018b842d4db181a8b24166006bad3cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 16:54:55 -0700
> > > Subject: tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init
> > > 
> > > From: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > commit 21df4a8b6018b842d4db181a8b24166006bad3cd upstream.
> > > 
> > > Instead of repeatedly calling tpm_chip_start/tpm_chip_stop when
> > > issuing commands to the tpm during initialization, just reserve the
> > > chip after wait_startup, and release it when we are ready to call
> > > tpm_chip_register.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Christian Bundy <christianbundy@fraction.io>
> > > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
> > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
> > > Cc: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
> > > Fixes: a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()")
> > > Fixes: 5b359c7c4372 ("tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's")
> > > Suggested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c |   35 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > @@ -899,13 +899,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> > > 
> > >         if (wait_startup(chip, 0) != 0) {
> > >                 rc = -ENODEV;
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_start;
> > >         }
> > > 
> > >         /* Take control of the TPM's interrupt hardware and shut it off */
> > >         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
> > >         if (rc < 0)
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_start;
> > > 
> > >         intmask |= TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT | TPM_INTF_LOCALITY_CHANGE_INT |
> > >                    TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT | TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT;
> > > @@ -914,21 +914,21 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> > > 
> > >         rc = tpm_chip_start(chip);
> > >         if (rc)
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_start;
> > > +
> > >         rc = tpm2_probe(chip);
> > > -       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> > >         if (rc)
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_probe;
> > > 
> > >         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_DID_VID(0), &vendor);
> > >         if (rc < 0)
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_probe;
> > > 
> > >         priv->manufacturer_id = vendor;
> > > 
> > >         rc = tpm_tis_read8(priv, TPM_RID(0), &rid);
> > >         if (rc < 0)
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_probe;
> > > 
> > >         dev_info(dev, "%s TPM (device-id 0x%X, rev-id %d)\n",
> > >                  (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ? "2.0" : "1.2",
> > > @@ -937,13 +937,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> > >         probe = probe_itpm(chip);
> > >         if (probe < 0) {
> > >                 rc = -ENODEV;
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_probe;
> > >         }
> > > 
> > >         /* Figure out the capabilities */
> > >         rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INTF_CAPS(priv->locality), &intfcaps);
> > >         if (rc < 0)
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > +               goto err_probe;
> > > 
> > >         dev_dbg(dev, "TPM interface capabilities (0x%x):\n",
> > >                 intfcaps);
> > > @@ -977,10 +977,9 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> > >                 if (tpm_get_timeouts(chip)) {
> > >                         dev_err(dev, "Could not get TPM timeouts and durations\n");
> > >                         rc = -ENODEV;
> > > -                       goto out_err;
> > > +                       goto err_probe;
> > >                 }
> > > 
> > > -               tpm_chip_start(chip);
> > >                 chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
> > >                 if (irq) {
> > >                         tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, IRQF_SHARED,
> > > @@ -991,18 +990,20 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev
> > >                 } else {
> > >                         tpm_tis_probe_irq(chip, intmask);
> > >                 }
> > > -               tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> > >         }
> > > 
> > > +       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> > > +
> > >         rc = tpm_chip_register(chip);
> > >         if (rc)
> > > -               goto out_err;
> > > -
> > > -       if (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL)
> > > -               chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false);
> > > +               goto err_start;
> > > 
> > >         return 0;
> > > -out_err:
> > > +
> > > +err_probe:
> > > +       tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> > > +
> > > +err_start:
> > >         if ((chip->ops != NULL) && (chip->ops->clk_enable != NULL))
> > >                 chip->ops->clk_enable(chip, false);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from jsnitsel@redhat.com are
> > > 
> > > queue-5.4/iommu-fix-kasan-use-after-free-in-iommu_insert_resv_region.patch
> > > queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-fix-dmar-pte-read-access-not-set-error.patch
> > > queue-5.4/iommu-set-group-default-domain-before-creating-direct-mappings.patch
> > > queue-5.4/tpm_tis-reserve-chip-for-duration-of-tpm_tis_core_init.patch
> > > queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-allocate-reserved-region-for-isa-with-correct-permission.patch
> > > queue-5.4/iommu-vt-d-set-isa-bridge-reserved-region-as-relaxable.patch

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Dan, please also test the branch and tell if other patches are needed.
> I'm a bit blind with this as I don't have direct access to the faulting
> hardware. Thanks. [*]
> 
> [*] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/12

Given that:

1. I cannot reproduce the bug locally.
2. Neither of the patches have any appropriate tags (tested-by and
   reviewed-by). [*]

I'm sorry but how am I expected to include these patches?

[*] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-integrity/list/?series=208305

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Dan Williams]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:15 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Dan, please also test the branch and tell if other patches are needed.
> > I'm a bit blind with this as I don't have direct access to the faulting
> > hardware. Thanks. [*]
> >
> > [*] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/12
>
> Given that:
>
> 1. I cannot reproduce the bug locally.
> 2. Neither of the patches have any appropriate tags (tested-by and
>    reviewed-by). [*]
>
> I'm sorry but how am I expected to include these patches?

Thanks for the branch, I'll get it tested on the failing hardware.
Might be a few days due to holiday lag.

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Dan Williams]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 9:17 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:15 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Dan, please also test the branch and tell if other patches are needed.
> > > I'm a bit blind with this as I don't have direct access to the faulting
> > > hardware. Thanks. [*]
> > >
> > > [*] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/12
> >
> > Given that:
> >
> > 1. I cannot reproduce the bug locally.
> > 2. Neither of the patches have any appropriate tags (tested-by and
> >    reviewed-by). [*]
> >
> > I'm sorry but how am I expected to include these patches?
>
> Thanks for the branch, I'll get it tested on the failing hardware.
> Might be a few days due to holiday lag.

This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
this does not fix the problem.

As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:

    5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's

That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
does not appear to change anything in that regard.

Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
workaround.


[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@mail.gmail.com/

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 23:41 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
> this does not fix the problem.
> 
> As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
> 
>     5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
> 
> That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
> 21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
> does not appear to change anything in that regard.
> 
> Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
> quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
> workaround.
> 
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@mail.gmail.com/

I think for short term, yes, it is better to revert the commits
that make things more broken.

for-linus-v5.5-rc5 branch contains three commits that exactly do
this i.e. the reverts that Stefan sent and revert to Jerry's earlier
commit.

After that is out of the table it is easier to analyze how the code
should be actually refactored. Like, I have no idea when I get
local HW that can reproduce this and Jerry still seems to have the
same issue. It'd be nice make the exactly right changes instead of
reverts but situation is what it is.

Please check the branch and ACK/NAK if I can add tested-by's (and
other tags).

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Tue Dec 31 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 23:41 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
>> this does not fix the problem.
>>
>> As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
>>
>>     5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
>>
>> That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
>> 21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
>> does not appear to change anything in that regard.
>>
>> Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
>> quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
>> workaround.
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@mail.gmail.com/
>
>I think for short term, yes, it is better to revert the commits
>that make things more broken.
>
>for-linus-v5.5-rc5 branch contains three commits that exactly do
>this i.e. the reverts that Stefan sent and revert to Jerry's earlier
>commit.
>
>After that is out of the table it is easier to analyze how the code
>should be actually refactored. Like, I have no idea when I get
>local HW that can reproduce this and Jerry still seems to have the
>same issue. It'd be nice make the exactly right changes instead of
>reverts but situation is what it is.
>

Unfortunately I haven't found a system yet where I get into this code
path. So I've been relying on Dan's testing and the owner of the
t490s.

>Please check the branch and ACK/NAK if I can add tested-by's (and
>other tags).
>
>/Jarkko
>

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Tue Dec 31 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 23:41 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
>> this does not fix the problem.
>>
>> As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
>>
>>     5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
>>
>> That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
>> 21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
>> does not appear to change anything in that regard.
>>
>> Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
>> quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
>> workaround.
>>
>>
>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@mail.gmail.com/
>
>I think for short term, yes, it is better to revert the commits
>that make things more broken.
>
>for-linus-v5.5-rc5 branch contains three commits that exactly do
>this i.e. the reverts that Stefan sent and revert to Jerry's earlier
>commit.
>
>After that is out of the table it is easier to analyze how the code
>should be actually refactored. Like, I have no idea when I get
>local HW that can reproduce this and Jerry still seems to have the
>same issue. It'd be nice make the exactly right changes instead of
>reverts but situation is what it is.
>

The only other thought I had was moving the tpm_chip_start/stop
into tpm_tis_probe_irq_single around the tpm_tis_gen_interrupt call.
I don't know why doing the clkrun bit after setting the interrupt
register values would matter, but I'm not sure what else there is
that would be different than when that stuff was happening in
down in tpm_try_transmit. Without hardware to poke at it is hard
to get anywhere.

>Please check the branch and ACK/NAK if I can add tested-by's (and
>other tags).
>
>/Jarkko
>

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 06:02:56PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Tue Dec 31 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 23:41 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
> > > this does not fix the problem.
> > > 
> > > As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
> > > 
> > >     5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
> > > 
> > > That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
> > > 21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
> > > does not appear to change anything in that regard.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
> > > quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
> > > workaround.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@mail.gmail.com/
> > 
> > I think for short term, yes, it is better to revert the commits
> > that make things more broken.
> > 
> > for-linus-v5.5-rc5 branch contains three commits that exactly do
> > this i.e. the reverts that Stefan sent and revert to Jerry's earlier
> > commit.
> > 
> > After that is out of the table it is easier to analyze how the code
> > should be actually refactored. Like, I have no idea when I get
> > local HW that can reproduce this and Jerry still seems to have the
> > same issue. It'd be nice make the exactly right changes instead of
> > reverts but situation is what it is.
> > 
> 
> The only other thought I had was moving the tpm_chip_start/stop
> into tpm_tis_probe_irq_single around the tpm_tis_gen_interrupt call.
> I don't know why doing the clkrun bit after setting the interrupt
> register values would matter, but I'm not sure what else there is
> that would be different than when that stuff was happening in
> down in tpm_try_transmit. Without hardware to poke at it is hard
> to get anywhere.

I think in the current timeframe it is better to reset to best known
state like Dan suggested given the limited testing abilities.

Hopefully Dan can test this after the holidays and I also informed
about the branch here:

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205935

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Christian Bundy]

> Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> into this code as well.

Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
is anything else I can do to help.

Christian

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> > into this code as well.
> 
> Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
> with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
> is anything else I can do to help.
> 
> Christian

Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:

"I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
patches"

[*] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205935

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:21 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> > > into this code as well.
> >
> > Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
> > with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
> > is anything else I can do to help.
> >
> > Christian
>
> Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
>
> "I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
> patches"

Nice, I also built one of those. Just waiting for access to the system
again to gather results.

>
> [*] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205935
>
> /Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Dan Williams]

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:20 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:21 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > > > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> > > > into this code as well.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
> > > with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
> > > is anything else I can do to help.
> > >
> > > Christian
> >
> > Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
> >
> > "I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
> > patches"
>
> Nice, I also built one of those. Just waiting for access to the system
> again to gather results.

Ok, it looks good.

Tested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Tested-by: Xiaoping Zhou <xiaoping.zhou@intel.com>

It does report:

[    2.546660] tpm_tis IFX0740:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1B, rev-id 16)
[    2.546823] tpm tpm0: tpm_try_transmit: send(): error -5
[    2.546824] tpm tpm0: [Firmware Bug]: TPM interrupt not working,
polling instead

...at boot, but tpm2_nvlist works ok.

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Thu Jan 02 20, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:20 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:21 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
>> > > > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
>> > > > into this code as well.
>> > >
>> > > Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
>> > > with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
>> > > is anything else I can do to help.
>> > >
>> > > Christian
>> >
>> > Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
>> >
>> > "I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
>> > patches"
>>
>> Nice, I also built one of those. Just waiting for access to the system
>> again to gather results.
>
>Ok, it looks good.
>
>Tested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>Tested-by: Xiaoping Zhou <xiaoping.zhou@intel.com>
>
>It does report:
>
>[    2.546660] tpm_tis IFX0740:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1B, rev-id 16)
>[    2.546823] tpm tpm0: tpm_try_transmit: send(): error -5

That is the tpm2_get_tpm_pt call for testing the interrupts failing,
and is expected with the reverts.

>[    2.546824] tpm tpm0: [Firmware Bug]: TPM interrupt not working,
>polling instead
>
>...at boot, but tpm2_nvlist works ok.
>

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 21:04 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:20 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:21 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > > > > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> > > > > into this code as well.
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
> > > > with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
> > > > is anything else I can do to help.
> > > > 
> > > > Christian
> > > 
> > > Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
> > > 
> > > "I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
> > > patches"
> > 
> > Nice, I also built one of those. Just waiting for access to the system
> > again to gather results.
> 
> Ok, it looks good.
> 
> Tested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Tested-by: Xiaoping Zhou <xiaoping.zhou@intel.com>

Thank you.

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Thu, 2020-01-02 at 11:20 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:21 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > > > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> > > > into this code as well.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
> > > with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
> > > is anything else I can do to help.
> > > 
> > > Christian
> > 
> > Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
> > 
> > "I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
> > patches"
> 
> Nice, I also built one of those. Just waiting for access to the system
> again to gather results.
> 
> > [*] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205935
> > 
> > /Jarkko

Thanks, I'll check this also during weekend once (given the timezone
differences) i.e. if you can provide me result, I can also compose a
pull request during the weekend and send it.

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Thu Jan 02 20, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
>> > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
>> > into this code as well.
>>
>> Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
>> with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
>> is anything else I can do to help.
>>
>> Christian
>
>Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
>
>"I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
>patches"
>
>[*] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205935
>
>/Jarkko
>

You can add my ack to the reverts.

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 13:24 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Thu Jan 02 20, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > > > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> > > > into this code as well.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
> > > with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
> > > is anything else I can do to help.
> > > 
> > > Christian
> > 
> > Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
> > 
> > "I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
> > patches"
> > 
> > [*] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205935
> > 
> > /Jarkko
> > 
> 
> You can add my ack to the reverts.

OK, will do. Thanks.

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Fri, 2020-01-03 at 13:24 -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Thu Jan 02 20, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:47:37AM -0800, Christian Bundy wrote:
> > > > Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
> > > > into this code as well.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
> > > with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
> > > is anything else I can do to help.
> > > 
> > > Christian
> > 
> > Takashi wrote yesterday [*]:
> > 
> > "I'm building a test kernel package based on 5.5-rc4 with Jarkko's revert
> > patches"
> > 
> > [*] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205935
> > 
> > /Jarkko
> > 
> 
> You can add my ack to the reverts.

I'll actually send a patch set to linux-integrity (ETA 1-2h) and
you can tag it then.

Better to have sanity check before I send the PR so please check the
patches and give your feedback ASAP. Please also the check that the
commit messages look good and also that the cover letter as I'll use
that as basis for my pull request message.

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Sat, 2020-01-04 at 01:07 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > You can add my ack to the reverts.
> 
> I'll actually send a patch set to linux-integrity (ETA 1-2h) and
> you can tag it then.
> 
> Better to have sanity check before I send the PR so please check the
> patches and give your feedback ASAP. Please also the check that the
> commit messages look good and also that the cover letter as I'll use
> that as basis for my pull request message.

They are out.

/Jarkko

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Tue Dec 31 19, Christian Bundy wrote:
>> Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going
>> into this code as well.
>
>Unfortunately I'm now unable to test, sorry for the trouble. I replaced my BIOS
>with UEFI firmware and the problem has disappeared. Please let me know if there
>is anything else I can do to help.
>
>Christian
>

That is interesting. Is the tpm functioning, or did the firmware change disable it?
Is there any output from 'dmesg | grep -i tpm' or anything in /sys/class/tpm/ ?

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Sun Dec 29 19, Dan Williams wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 9:17 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:15 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
>> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> > > Dan, please also test the branch and tell if other patches are needed.
>> > > I'm a bit blind with this as I don't have direct access to the faulting
>> > > hardware. Thanks. [*]
>> > >
>> > > [*] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/12
>> >
>> > Given that:
>> >
>> > 1. I cannot reproduce the bug locally.
>> > 2. Neither of the patches have any appropriate tags (tested-by and
>> >    reviewed-by). [*]
>> >
>> > I'm sorry but how am I expected to include these patches?
>>
>> Thanks for the branch, I'll get it tested on the failing hardware.
>> Might be a few days due to holiday lag.
>
>This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
>this does not fix the problem.
>
>As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
>
>    5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
>
>That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
>21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
>does not appear to change anything in that regard.
>
>Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
>quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
>workaround.
>

Hi Dan,

Just to make sure I understand correctly are you saying you still have
the screaming interrupt with the flag commit reverted, or that it is
polling instead of using interrupts [2]? Was that testing with both
commits reverted, or just the flag commit?  What kernel were you
running before you saw the issue with 5.3 stable?  On that kernel you
weren't seeing the polling message, and interrupts were working?  Are
you able to boot a 5.0 kernel on the system? It would be interesting
to see how it was behaving before the power gating changes. I think it
would be using polling due to how the code behaves because of that
flag. It looks like without the flag being enabled by Stefan's commit
TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE will never get cleared because tpm_tis_probe_irq_single
expects tpm_tis_send to clear it if there is a problem, and without the
flag being set that whole section of code is skipped.

Unfortunately I'm having no luck tracking down a system where I can actually
test and debug this interrupt code.

Reverting the following commits should get you to a point where it is using
polling at least. This will bring back Christian's problem with tpm_get_timeouts
failing, but that can be solved with wrapping that with tpm_chip_start/tpm_chip_stop.
Christian, were you having any issues with interrupts? You system was going into
this code as well.

21df4a8b6018 | 2019-12-17 | tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init (Jerry Snitselaar)
1ea32c83c699 | 2019-09-02 | tpm_tis_core: Set TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ before probing for interrupts (Stefan Berger)
5b359c7c4372 | 2019-09-02 | tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's (Stefan Berger)

Jarkko, another problem has been reported that appears to have shown up around the time of the gating changes:

[    4.098104] tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0xFE, rev-id 2)
[    5.138572] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip
[    5.143727] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip
[    5.148881] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip
[    5.154037] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip
[    5.159209] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip
[    5.164370] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip
[    5.169517] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip
[    5.174673] ima: Error Communicating to TPM chip

I've located a system where it occurs, so I'll try to bisect and figure out what is going wrong.

Regards,
Jerry

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAPcyv4iepQup4bwMuWzq6r5gdx83hgYckUWFF7yF=rszjz3dtQ@mail.gmail.com/

>
>[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAA9_cmeLnHK4y+usQaWo72nUG3RNsripuZnS-koY4XTRC+mwJA@mail.gmail.com/
>

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:30 PM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun Dec 29 19, Dan Williams wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 9:17 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 7:15 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> >> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> > > Dan, please also test the branch and tell if other patches are needed.
> >> > > I'm a bit blind with this as I don't have direct access to the faulting
> >> > > hardware. Thanks. [*]
> >> > >
> >> > > [*] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/12
> >> >
> >> > Given that:
> >> >
> >> > 1. I cannot reproduce the bug locally.
> >> > 2. Neither of the patches have any appropriate tags (tested-by and
> >> >    reviewed-by). [*]
> >> >
> >> > I'm sorry but how am I expected to include these patches?
> >>
> >> Thanks for the branch, I'll get it tested on the failing hardware.
> >> Might be a few days due to holiday lag.
> >
> >This looked like the wrong revert to me, and testing confirms that
> >this does not fix the problem.
> >
> >As I mentioned in the original report [1] the commit that bisect flagged was:
> >
> >    5b359c7c4372 tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing IRQ's
> >
> >That commit moved tpm_chip_start() before irq probing. Commit
> >21df4a8b6018 "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init"
> >does not appear to change anything in that regard.
> >
> >Perhaps this hardware has always had broken interrupts and needs to be
> >quirked off? I'm trying an experiment with tpm_tis_core.interrupts=0
> >workaround.
> >
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Just to make sure I understand correctly are you saying you still have
> the screaming interrupt with the flag commit reverted,

Correct.

> or that it is
> polling instead of using interrupts [2]? Was that testing with both
> commits reverted, or just the flag commit?

With both patches reverted the driver falls back to polled mode, with
just the flag commit reverted the screaming interrupt issue is still
present.

> What kernel were you
> running before you saw the issue with 5.3 stable?

The regression was detected when moving to v5.3.6 which includes
commit 7f064c378e2c "tpm_tis_core: Turn on the TPM before probing
IRQ's".

> On that kernel you
> weren't seeing the polling message, and interrupts were working?

I've never seen interrupts working.

> Are
> you able to boot a 5.0 kernel on the system? It would be interesting
> to see how it was behaving before the power gating changes. I think it
> would be using polling due to how the code behaves because of that
> flag. It looks like without the flag being enabled by Stefan's commit
> TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE will never get cleared because tpm_tis_probe_irq_single
> expects tpm_tis_send to clear it if there is a problem, and without the
> flag being set that whole section of code is skipped.

I'll try to get a result from a pre-5.3.4 kernel to see what the
behavior is. I did have system owner run an experiment with
tpm_tis.interrupts=0 on the kernel command line and that also avoids
the problem.

Re: Patch "tpm_tis: reserve chip for duration of tpm_tis_core_init" has been added to the 5.4-stable tree

[Jerry Snitselaar]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 8:15 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 08:11:50AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Dan, please also test the branch and tell if other patches are needed.
> > I'm a bit blind with this as I don't have direct access to the faulting
> > hardware. Thanks. [*]
> >
> > [*] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/27/12
>
> Given that:
>
> 1. I cannot reproduce the bug locally.
> 2. Neither of the patches have any appropriate tags (tested-by and
>    reviewed-by). [*]
>
> I'm sorry but how am I expected to include these patches?
>
> [*] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-integrity/list/?series=208305
>
> /Jarkko
>

Hi Jarkko, sorry I've been under the weather the past couple of days.
I will try to get some testing of your branch done tomorrow. I'm
trying to find a system that use tpm_tis and uses interrupts to test
as well.