From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [96.44.175.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018E12F27 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:18:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1672931884; bh=SpKViO9KKGPQsDvTqPuWi6tYm/odcCiu/A949QhiGJ0=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=A2aIKmogTcyzNm7tjuP+lhTI3Gp+YPwcqoEOg2TP1fVpLMndKdaau7uVzbj+2ZBfI EBogZ6fwCmIS2kR9PjLE+GJZK6glENFoQloIshif5/NItnGKTdjlj5eqI/7LtqIN3P PftGPoyMSAbvcdZEL9RYdxkUWB8yMRn6Jpv/viMc= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438571286048; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:18:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VTRp5QcrKI60; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:18:04 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1672931883; bh=SpKViO9KKGPQsDvTqPuWi6tYm/odcCiu/A949QhiGJ0=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=M1/zSBx8nbMV6uqcavEg8XMD/PmEJijFlvKEsjZoLhxtz5gKtIWcTos8g4nwaOrBj rIYCrvu+sbfcmELu6UWOLHb66Jwaob5iJ3pp2t9Z0I5GXbb9lgZo7GK32E4NhHVGpa lz75UgDjBt3EMqIdrmW5io7mQ0jcbKx1zG9liDrU= Received: from lingrow.int.hansenpartnership.com (unknown [IPv6:2601:5c4:4302:c21::c14]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56F66128603E; Thu, 5 Jan 2023 10:17:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <2d07d185384ed444bef46648316354ef5afd481a.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] suspend to ram fails in 6.2-rc1 due to tpm errors From: James Bottomley To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: Vlastimil Babka , Peter Huewe , Jarkko Sakkinen , Jason Gunthorpe , Jan Dabros , regressions@lists.linux.dev, LKML , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Dominik Brodowski , Herbert Xu , Linus Torvalds , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Johannes Altmanninger Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:17:57 -0500 In-Reply-To: <7ebab1ff-48f1-2737-f0d3-25c72666d041@leemhuis.info> References: <7cbe96cf-e0b5-ba63-d1b4-f63d2e826efa@suse.cz> <7ebab1ff-48f1-2737-f0d3-25c72666d041@leemhuis.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.4 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2023-01-05 at 14:59 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 29.12.22 05:03, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 06:07:25PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2022-12-28 at 21:22 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > Ugh, while the problem [1] was fixed in 6.1, it's now happening > > > > again on the T460 with 6.2-rc1. Except I didn't see any oops > > > > message or "tpm_try_transmit" error this time. The first > > > > indication of a problem is this during a resume from suspend to > > > > ram: > > > > > > > > tpm tpm0: A TPM error (28) occurred continue selftest > > > > > > > > and then periodically > > > > > > > > tpm tpm0: A TPM error (28) occurred attempting get random > > > > > > That's a TPM 1.2 error which means the TPM failed the selftest.  > > > The original problem was reported against TPM 2.0  because of a > > > missing try_get_ops(). > > > > No, I'm pretty sure the original bug, which was fixed by "char: > > tpm: Protect tpm_pm_suspend with locks" regards 1.2 as well, > > especially considering it's the same hardware from Vlastimil > > causing this. I also recall seeing this in 1.2 when I ran this with > > the TPM emulator. So that's not correct. > > James, are you or some other TPM developer looking into this? Or is > this deadlocked now? Not really: TPM 1.2 way predates my interest in the TPM subsystem, and I've only ever done patches to 2.0. I can look at the paths theoretically, but I don't have any hardware. Self Test failures tend to be hardware specific, so even poking around in the emulator is unlikely to give what might be the cause. > And if so: how can we get this unstuck to get this regression > solved? One of the TPM maintainers with hardware (possibly the specific TPM ... what is it, by the way?) needs to get involved. James