Hi, On 6/15/21 3:01 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > 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. Shouldn't there the be some completion somewhere with get completed at the end of probe(), with the read-path which is involved in this case blocking on this? If you can prepare a kernel-patch to test, then I can build a Fedora kernel rpm with the patch added for the user to test. Regards, Hans
