On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On 11/29/20 4:23 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:45:01PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 11/24/20 6:52 PM, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jarkko Sakkinen @ 2020-11-23 20:26 MST:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:36:20PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Matthew Garrett @ 2020-10-15 15:39 MST:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 2:44 PM Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is a misconfiguration in the bios of the gpio pin used for the
> >>>>>>> interrupt in the T490s. When interrupts are enabled in the tpm_tis
> >>>>>>> driver code this results in an interrupt storm. This was initially
> >>>>>>> reported when we attempted to enable the interrupt code in the tpm_tis
> >>>>>>> driver, which previously wasn't setting a flag to enable it. Due to
> >>>>>>> the reports of the interrupt storm that code was reverted and we went back
> >>>>>>> to polling instead of using interrupts. Now that we know the T490s problem
> >>>>>>> is a firmware issue, add code to check if the system is a T490s and
> >>>>>>> disable interrupts if that is the case. This will allow us to enable
> >>>>>>> interrupts for everyone else. If the user has a fixed bios they can
> >>>>>>> force the enabling of interrupts with tpm_tis.interrupts=1 on the
> >>>>>>> kernel command line.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think an implication of this is that systems haven't been
> >>>>>> well-tested with interrupts enabled. In general when we've found a
> >>>>>> firmware issue in one place it ends up happening elsewhere as well, so
> >>>>>> it wouldn't surprise me if there are other machines that will also be
> >>>>>> unhappy with interrupts enabled. Would it be possible to automatically
> >>>>>> detect this case (eg, if we get more than a certain number of
> >>>>>> interrupts in a certain timeframe immediately after enabling the
> >>>>>> interrupt) and automatically fall back to polling in that case? It
> >>>>>> would also mean that users with fixed firmware wouldn't need to pass a
> >>>>>> parameter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe Matthew is correct here. I found another system today
> >>>>> with completely different vendor for both the system and the tpm chip.
> >>>>> In addition another Lenovo model, the L490, has the issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This initial attempt at a solution like Matthew suggested works on
> >>>>> the system I found today, but I imagine it is all sorts of wrong.
> >>>>> In the 2 systems where I've seen it, there are about 100000 interrupts
> >>>>> in around 1.5 seconds, and then the irq code shuts down the interrupt
> >>>>> because they aren't being handled.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> >>>>> index 49ae09ac604f..478e9d02a3fa 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> >>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,11 @@
> >>>>> #include "tpm.h"
> >>>>> #include "tpm_tis_core.h"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static unsigned int time_start = 0;
> >>>>> +static bool storm_check = true;
> >>>>> +static bool storm_killed = false;
> >>>>> +static u32 irqs_fired = 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe kstat_irqs() would be a better idea than ad hoc stats.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, yes that would be better.
> >>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> static void tpm_tis_clkrun_enable(struct tpm_chip *chip, bool value);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static void tpm_tis_enable_interrupt(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask)
> >>>>> @@ -464,25 +469,31 @@ static int tpm_tis_send_data(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
> >>>>> return rc;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -static void disable_interrupts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >>>>> +static void __disable_interrupts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> >>>>> u32 intmask;
> >>>>> int rc;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if (priv->irq == 0)
> >>>>> - return;
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
> >>>>> if (rc < 0)
> >>>>> intmask = 0;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> intmask &= ~TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE;
> >>>>> rc = tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), intmask);
> >>>>> + chip->flags &= ~TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +static void disable_interrupts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + if (priv->irq == 0)
> >>>>> + return;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + __disable_interrupts(chip);
> >>>>> devm_free_irq(chip->dev.parent, priv->irq, chip);
> >>>>> priv->irq = 0;
> >>>>> - chip->flags &= ~TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> @@ -528,6 +539,12 @@ static int tpm_tis_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t len)
> >>>>> int rc, irq;
> >>>>> struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + if (unlikely(storm_killed)) {
> >>>>> + devm_free_irq(chip->dev.parent, priv->irq, chip);
> >>>>> + priv->irq = 0;
> >>>>> + storm_killed = false;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> OK this kind of bad solution because if tpm_tis_send() is not called,
> >>>> then IRQ is never freed. AFAIK, devres_* do not sleep but use spin
> >>>> lock, i.e. you could render out both storm_check and storm_killed.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Is there a way to flag it for freeing later while in an interrupt
> >>> context? I'm not sure where to clean it up since devm_free_irq can't be
> >>> called in tis_int_handler.
> >>
> >> You could add a workqueue work-struct just for this and queue that up
> >> to do the free when you detect the storm. That will then run pretty much
> >> immediately, avoiding the storm going on for (much) longer.
> >
> > That's sounds feasible.
> >
> >>> Before diving further into that though, does anyone else have an opinion
> >>> on ripping out the irq code, and just using polling? We've been only
> >>> polling since 2015 anyways.
> >>
> >> Given James Bottomley's reply I guess it would be worthwhile to get the
> >> storm detection to work.
> >
> > OK, agreed. I take my words back from a response few minutes ago :-)
>
> :)
>
> To be clear, I think we should give the storm detection a go. Especially
> given the problems which James has seen with polling on some TPMs.
>
> But if that turns out to not be feasible I agree we should just either
> disable IRQs by default on standard x86 platforms, or just remove the
> IRQ support all together.
Just for completeness: one option is also to whitelist IRQ's.
> Regards,
>
> Hans
/Jarkko
