> On Dec 8, 2020, at 18:17, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 12:42:53PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>> Hi Jarkko,
>>
>> A user report that the system can only do S3 once. Subsequent S3 fails after commit a3fbfae82b4c ("tpm: take TPM chip power gating out of tpm_transmit()").
>>
>> Dmesg with the issue, collected under 5.10-rc2:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1891502/comments/14
>>
>> Dmesg without the issue, collected under 5.0.0-rc8:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1891502/comments/16
>>
>> Full bug report here:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1891502
>>
>> Kai-Heng
>
> Relevant part:
>
>
> [80601.620149] tpm tpm0: Error (28) sending savestate before suspend
> [80601.620165] PM: __pnp_bus_suspend(): tpm_pm_suspend+0x0/0x90 returns 28
> [80601.620172] PM: dpm_run_callback(): pnp_bus_suspend+0x0/0x20 returns 28
> [80601.620178] PM: Device 00:01 failed to suspend: error 28
>
> Looking at this there are two issues:
>
> A. TPM_ORD_SAVESTATE command failing, this a new regression.
> B. When tpm_pm_suspend() fails, it should not fail the whole suspend
> procedure. And it returns the TPM error code back to the upper
> layers when it does so, which makes no sense. This is an old
> issue revealed by A.
>
> Let's look at tpm_pm_suspend():
>
> /*
> * We are about to suspend. Save the TPM state
> * so that it can be restored.
> */
> int tpm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> int rc = 0;
>
> if (!chip)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_ALWAYS_POWERED)
> goto suspended;
>
> if ((chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_FIRMWARE_POWER_MANAGED) &&
> !pm_suspend_via_firmware())
> goto suspended;
>
> if (!tpm_chip_start(chip)) {
> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
> tpm2_shutdown(chip, TPM2_SU_STATE);
> else
> rc = tpm1_pm_suspend(chip, tpm_suspend_pcr);
>
> tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> }
>
> suspended:
> return rc;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_pm_suspend);
>
> I would modify this into:
>
> /*
> * We are about to suspend. Save the TPM state
> * so that it can be restored.
> */
> int tpm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> int rc = 0;
>
> if (!chip)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_ALWAYS_POWERED)
> goto suspended;
>
> if ((chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_FIRMWARE_POWER_MANAGED) &&
> !pm_suspend_via_firmware())
> goto suspended;
>
> if (!tpm_chip_start(chip)) {
> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
> tpm2_shutdown(chip, TPM2_SU_STATE);
> else
> tpm1_pm_suspend(chip, tpm_suspend_pcr);
>
> tpm_chip_stop(chip);
> }
>
> suspended:
> return rc;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_pm_suspend);
>
> I.e. it's a good idea to put something into klog but that should not
> fail the whole suspend procedure. TPM is essentially opt-in feature.
>
> Of course issue A needs to be also sorted out but would this work as
> a quick initial fix? I can queue a patch for this. Is it possible to
> try out this fix for if I drop a patch?
Yes, possible test result from affected user.
I had to cut those code and do a diff side by side to find what changed.
Hopefully next time I can get one from `git diff`...
Kai-Heng
>
> /Jarkko
