Hi, On 5/10/21 7:25 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 11:07:43AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi Jarko, >> >> On 3/16/21 8:18 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:34:01PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 2/11/21 2:09 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>> Hi Jerry, >>>>> >>>>> It looks like there still is an issue with the recent changes to the tpm_tis IRQ >>>>> handling. At least I think those are the cause I did not dive any deeper, >>>>> I just noticed that we (Fedora) have been receiving an aweful lot of >>>>> kernel tpm_tis_send_data backtraces with most starting with tpm_tis_probe_irq_... >>>>> >>>>> See for example: >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912167 >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927610 >>>>> >>>>> Those are just the 3 which landed in my inbox today, for much more see: >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=tpm_tis_send_data >>>>> (this shows 18 bugs atm). >>>>> >>>>> These were reported through the Fedora ABRT tools which automatically >>>>> collects backtraces, the bugs have links to the ABRT reports, e.g. : >>>>> https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/reports/28155/ >>>>> https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/reports/37107/ >>>>> >>>>> The 28155 report says that so far there have been 308,412 (ouch) automatic >>>>> uploads of that particular variant of these backtraces >>>>> >>>>> Note the second (37107) retrace report is about this happening >>>>> on resume, rather then on probe/tpm_tis_probe_irq_... time. >>>>> >>>>> Did your work on this work land in 5.10 ? Or could it be that the >>>>> issue is an incomplete backport to the 5.10.y stable series ? >>>> >>>> Ping ? >>>> >>>> It is raining bug-reports about this: >>>> >>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=tpm_tis_send_data >>>> >>>> Currently lists 25 bugs and that is excluding bugs which have already >>>> been marked as a duplicate. >>>> >>>> Can someone involved in the patch-series which is causing this regression >>>> please take a look at these kernel backtraces ? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Hans >>> >>> I incorporated two fixes to this issue to my last PR, which were taken >>> to the mainline. What is the situation with the mainline? >> >> Thank you for your reply and sorry for being slow to respond. >> >> Is this expected to be fixed in 5.11, or when you say mainline you >> main Linus' master branch / so the fixes are in 5.12 only ? >> >> The reason I'm asking is because we just received another bugreport >> about this against 5.11.17. The bug is marked private (our tool to >> automatically file bugs for kernel backtraces does this) so let me >> just copy and paste the trace here: >> >> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 3060 at drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c:205 >> tpm_tis_status+0x66/0x70 >> >> CPU: 0 PID: 3060 Comm: systemd-sleep Not tainted 5.11.17-200.fc33.x86_64 #1 >> Hardware name: Hewlett-Packard HP ProBook 6460b/161D, BIOS 68SCE Ver. F.63 >> 05/27/2016 >> RIP: 0010:tpm_tis_status+0x66/0x70 >> Code: 23 75 05 48 83 c4 10 c3 31 c0 80 3d 38 02 56 01 00 75 f0 48 c7 c7 94 67 >> 43 96 88 44 24 07 c6 05 24 02 56 01 01 e8 4a 53 3c 00 <0f> 0b 0f b6 44 24 07 eb >> d0 90 66 66 66 66 90 41 57 41 56 41 55 41 >> RSP: 0018:ffffaac581427b10 EFLAGS: 00010282 >> RAX: 000000000000001b RBX: ffff9dc800b93000 RCX: ffff9dc83b418ac8 >> RDX: 00000000ffffffd8 RSI: 0000000000000027 RDI: ffff9dc83b418ac0 >> RBP: ffff9dc800b93000 R08: ffffffff96a64ec0 R09: ffffaac581427ab0 >> R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 000000002d2d2d2d R12: ffff9dc80667c268 >> R13: ffff9dc801fd1000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffaac581427bca >> FS: 00007f8f0f32c000(0000) GS:ffff9dc83b400000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 >> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 >> CR2: 0000557044ec6c86 CR3: 0000000062e92001 CR4: 00000000000606f0 >> Call Trace: >> tpm_tis_send_data+0x2b/0x230 >> tpm_tis_send_main+0x1e/0xe0 >> tpm_transmit+0xd8/0x3d0 >> tpm_transmit_cmd+0x25/0x90 >> tpm1_do_selftest+0x88/0x130 >> ? _cond_resched+0x16/0x40 >> tpm_tis_resume+0x4d/0x120 >> ? pnpacpi_resume+0x1b/0xa0 >> ? pnp_bus_suspend+0x10/0x10 >> pnp_bus_resume+0x63/0x90 >> dpm_run_callback+0x4c/0x120 >> device_resume+0xa7/0x200 >> dpm_resume+0xce/0x2c0 >> dpm_resume_end+0xd/0x20 >> suspend_devices_and_enter+0x195/0x750 >> pm_suspend.cold+0x329/0x374 >> state_store+0x71/0xd0 >> kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x124/0x1b0 >> new_sync_write+0x108/0x180 >> vfs_write+0x1bc/0x270 >> ksys_write+0x4f/0xc0 >> do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 >> RIP: 0033:0x7f8f102ec4e7 >> Code: 0d 00 f7 d8 64 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb b7 0f 1f 00 f3 0f 1e fa 64 >> 8b 04 25 18 00 00 00 85 c0 75 10 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 51 >> c3 48 83 ec 28 48 89 54 24 18 48 89 74 24 >> RSP: 002b:00007ffe87216bf8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001 >> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000004 RCX: 00007f8f102ec4e7 >> RDX: 0000000000000004 RSI: 00007ffe87216ce0 RDI: 0000000000000004 >> RBP: 00007ffe87216ce0 R08: 000055c485d835e0 R09: 00007f8f103830c0 >> R10: 00007f8f10382fc0 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000004 >> R13: 000055c485d7f650 R14: 0000000000000004 R15: 00007f8f103bf720 >> >> Regards, >> >> Hans > > I sent a couple fixes (cc'd to you). I've seen the fixes, thank you. I'll probably add these as downstream patches to the Fedora 5.12 kernels for now and see if that helps. Regards, Hans
