> Dear Jason, > > > On 12/08/17 17:18, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:07:39PM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: > > > >> I have no access to the system right now, but want to point out, that the > >> log was created by `journactl -k`, so I do not know if that messes with the > >> time stamps. I checked the output of `dmesg` but didn’t see the TPM > error > >> messages in the output – only `tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id > 0xFE, > >> rev-id 4)`. Do I need to pass a different error message to `dmesg`? > > > > It is a good question, I don't know.. If your kernel isn't setup to > > timestamp messages then the journalstamp will certainly be garbage. > > > > No idea why you wouldn't see the messages in dmesg, if they are not in > > dmesg they couldn't get into the journal > > It looks like I was running an older Linux kernel version, when running > `dmesg`. Sorry for the noise. Here are the messages with the Linux > kernel time stamps, showing that the delays work correctly. > > ``` > $ uname -a > Linux Ixpees 4.15.0-041500rc2-generic #201712031230 SMP Sun Dec 3 > 17:32:03 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > $ sudo dmesg | grep TPM > [ 0.000000] ACPI: TPM2 0x000000006F332168 000034 (v03 Tpm2Tabl > 00000001 AMI 00000000) > [ 1.114355] tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0xFE, rev-id 4) > [ 1.125250] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest > [ 1.156645] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest > [ 1.208053] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest > [ 1.299640] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest > [ 1.471223] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest > [ 1.802819] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest > [ 2.454320] tpm tpm0: A TPM error (2314) occurred continue selftest > [ 3.734808] tpm tpm0: TPM self test failed > [ 3.759675] ima: No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass! (rc=-19) > ``` Thanks for the fixed log. So your TPM seems to be rather slow with executing the selftests. Could try to apply the patch that I've just sent you? It ensures that your TPM gets more time to execute all the tests, up to the limit set in the PTP. (I would have sent that patch also to linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, since it was included in the discussion, but for some strange reason my mail system declared that to be an "Invalid address"...) Alexander
