On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 03:33:33PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 6/1/21 6:04 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 5/31/21 6:36 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>> Interestingly enough the first backtrace is also happening on a: > >>> "Dell Inc. XPS 13 9310/0MRT12, BIOS 2.2.0 04/06/2021" > >>> > >>> So it seems that at least with 5.12.6 (which has the last 2 fixes) > >>> all reports are about the XPS 13 9310. I wonder if there is an > >>> issue with the TPM interrupt line on the XPS 13 9310; I've asked the > >>> reporters to try adding tpm_tis.interrupts=0 to their kernel commandline. > >> > >> This is helpful for sure that these all are happening on matching hardware. > > > > So our kernel-backtrace tracking info (ABRT) just recorded a third backtrace > > with a kernel >= 5.12.6, again on the XPS 13 9310, so now we have 3 variants: > > > > 1. Backtrace starting with a call to ima_add_boot_aggregate > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1963712 > > > > 2. Backtrace starting with a call to tpm_dev_async_work: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964974 > > (note this one is not easily reproducible) > > > > 3. Backtrace starting with a call to rng_dev_read: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920510 > > > > 3. is the new one. All bugs linked above are public, all 3 backtraces > > so far have only been reported on the XPS 13 9310 (with kernel >= 5.12.6) > > and I've asked all the reporters to check if tpm_tis.interrupts=0 helps. > > Quick status update, I've got a response from a XPS 13 9310 user in: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920510 > > Indicating that a. he can reproduce this with the latest >= 5.12.6 kernels; > and b. it goes away when specifying tpm_tis.interrupts=0 as I expected > (I expected this because all the bug-reports started when the interrupt > code got fixed/re-enabled a while ago). > > Si I think that there just is something broken wrt the interrupt setup > on the XPS 13 9310 and that we should probably add an antry for the > XPS 13 9310 to the already existing tpm_tis_dmi_table pointing to the > also already existing tpm_tis_disable_irq callback. > > If other people agree that that is probably the best way forward ? > then I can prepare a patch and ask the user to test this. > > Regards, > > Hans I think it all roots down to the use of TPM before tpm2_probe(), i.e. TPM is not in expected state when tpm_chip_start() is called. I suggested to try out adding tpm_chip_stop() right before tpm_chip_start() in another response. That's only thing that makes logically sense to me at least. /Jarkko
