On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 09:58:24AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-02-02 at 11:26 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 05:33:17PM +0200, jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > An unexpected status from TPM chip is not irrecovable failure of
> > > the
> > > kernel. It's only undesirable situation. Thus, change the WARN_ONCE
> > > instance inside tpm_tis_status() to pr_warn_once().
> > >
> > > In addition: print the status in the log message because it is
> > > actually
> > > useful information lacking from the existing log message.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Fixes: 6f4f57f0b909 ("tpm: ibmvtpm: fix error return code in
> > > tpm_ibmvtpm_probe()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > index 431919d5f48a..21f67c6366cb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > > @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static u8 tpm_tis_status(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > > * acquired. Usually because tpm_try_get_ops() hasn't
> > > * been called before doing a TPM operation.
> > > */
> > > - WARN_ONCE(1, "TPM returned invalid status\n");
> > > + pr_warn_once("TPM returned invalid status: 0x%x\n",
> > > status);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > Actually in this case I don't understand why _once, especially based
> > on the comment. Would ratelimited not be better? So we can see if
> > it happens repeatedly? Even better would be if we could see when it
> > next gave a valid status after an invalid one.
>
> The reason was that we're trying to catch and kill paths to the status
> where the locality is incorrect. If you do some operation that finds
> an incorrect path the likelihood is you'll exercise it more than once,
> but all we need to identify it is the call trace from a single access.
> The symptom the user space process sees is a TPM timeout, but we still
> have the in-kernel trace to tell us why.
I don't agree with this reasoning. This warn could spun off also from chip
not following TCG spec. The patch does provide the status code, which is
always useful information.
/Jarkko
