On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 06:10:04PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 7/9/21 8:44 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 03:36:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 6/30/21 2:47 PM, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On 6/30/21 12:05 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 09:14:39PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> On 6/29/21 8:04 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:54:59PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/23/21 3:40 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 02:04:52PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 6/14/21 3:33 PM, 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). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> One more status update. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - A new 4th variant of the backtrace has been spotted, where the problem hits > >>>>>>>>> when called from probe() -> tpm2_auto_startup -> tpm2_do_selftest, see: > >>>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958381 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - So far all reports with kernel >= 5.12.6 have been on a Dell XPS 13 9310 > >>>>>>>>> models. But the new variant is happening on a Dell XPS 15 9500 and the > >>>>>>>>> backtrace starting at ima_add_boot_aggregate is also being reported on > >>>>>>>>> a Dell XPS 15 9500 (as well as on the XPS 13 9310). > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hans > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> OK, I'll have to query if I could borrow that laptop from someone. It's > >>>>>>>> fairly common laptop, i.e. might be possible. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the mean time I've also got a report that this variant of the backtrace: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. Backtrace starting with a call to ima_add_boot_aggregate > >>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1963712 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is also still happening with recent 5.12.y kernels on > >>>>>>> Dell Precision 7750 laptops. Both the Precision 7750 and the XPS 9500 use > >>>>>>> 10th gen comet lake processors (i7-10750H), where as the XPS 9310 is using > >>>>>>> an icelake processor. So the common denominator seems to be that they are > >>>>>>> all 2020 Dell laptop models using the latest Intel CPUs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> FYI the complete list of models on which some of the 4 backtrace variants > >>>>>>> are still seen on recent 5.12.y kernels is now: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dell XPS 13 9310 > >>>>>>> Dell XPS 15 9500 > >>>>>>> Dell Precision 7750 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hans > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does "tpm_tis.interrupts=0" uniformly workaround the issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> I unfortunately have not gotten much replies to my request to test with > >>>>> tpm_tis.interrupts=0, but for those people who have bothered to test > >>>>> (2 reporters IIRC) using tpm_tis.interrupts=0 does avoid the issue. > >>>> > >>>> So we see this in dmesg as first anything from TPM: > >>>> > >>>> [ 0.904572] tpm_tis STM0125:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x0, rev-id 78) > >>>> > >>>> This means that one command is successfully processed by the TPM, i.e. > >>>> tpm2_probe() in tpm_tis_core_init(). > >>>> > >>>> My first *guess* was that IRQ is given by ACPI, would need ACPI dump to > >>>> confirm (e.g. sudo acpidump > acpi.dump). It cannot be so because otherwise > >>>> this code path would be executed: > >>>> > >>>> if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ)) { > >>>> dev_err(&chip->dev, FW_BUG > >>>> "TPM interrupt not working, polling instead\n"); > >>>> > >>>> disable_interrupts(chip); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ is never set, so you should see this message in dmesg if > >>>> a legit value is given to IRQ by ACPI. We are probably planning re-enable > >>>> IRQ code after these type of issues are fully resolved, but right now you > >>>> should not end up having it enabled (see tpm_tis_send() function). > >>>> > >>>> To put this together "if (irq != -1) {" path in tpm_tis_core_init() is > >>>> never executed. And early in the same function the interrupt hardware is > >>>> *explicitly* disabled. > >>>> > >>>> For me this looks like a hardware bug right now: interrupts stay enabled > >>>> for some reason. > >>>> > >>>> ACPI dump would be useful to verify some of the assumptions in this. > >>> > >>> Ok, I've added a comment to the Fedora bugs for the 4 different backtrace > >>> variants asking for acpidumps for the Dell XPS 13 9310, Dell XPS 15 9500 > >>> and Dell Precision 7750 laptops. > >> > >> 2 XPS 9310 acpidumps have been attached to: > >> > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920510 > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964974 > >> > >> Note the reporter of the first bug mentions that he is no longer having > >> this issue, but we are definitely still getting reports for kernel version > >>> 5.12.6 (which has the last 2 fixes) from XPS 9310 users... > >> > >> Maybe there are different BIOS versions in play ? It might be interesting > >> to compare the 2 acpidumps... > > > > ❯ diff -u ../tmp/ssdt7.dsl ../tmp2/ssdt7.dsl > > --- ../tmp/ssdt7.dsl 2021-07-09 21:32:06.473166420 +0300 > > +++ ../tmp2/ssdt7.dsl 2021-07-09 21:33:45.065934469 +0300 > > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ > > * > > * Disassembling to symbolic ASL+ operators > > * > > - * Disassembly of ssdt7.dat, Fri Jul 9 21:32:06 2021 > > + * Disassembly of ssdt7.dat, Fri Jul 9 21:33:45 2021 > > * > > * Original Table Header: > > * Signature "SSDT" > > @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ > > 0xFED40000, // Address Base > > 0x00005000, // Address Length > > ) > > - Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveLow, Shared, ,, _Y58) > > + Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveLow, Shared, ,, _Y55) > > { > > 0x0000000C, > > } > > @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ > > } > > Else > > { > > - CreateDWordField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y58._INT, LIRQ) // _INT: Interrupts > > + CreateDWordField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y55._INT, LIRQ) // _INT: Interrupts > > LIRQ = IRQN /* \_SB_.TPM_.IRQN */ > > Return (RES0) /* \_SB_.TPM_.RES0 */ > > } > > @@ -152,14 +152,14 @@ > > If ((IRQN != Zero)) > > { > > CreateDWordField (Arg0, 0x11, IRQ0) > > - CreateDWordField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y58._INT, LIRQ) // _INT: Interrupts > > + CreateDWordField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y55._INT, LIRQ) // _INT: Interrupts > > LIRQ = IRQ0 /* \_SB_.TPM_._SRS.IRQ0 */ > > IRQN = IRQ0 /* \_SB_.TPM_._SRS.IRQ0 */ > > CreateBitField (Arg0, 0x79, ITRG) > > - CreateBitField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y58._HE, LTRG) // _HE_: High-Edge > > + CreateBitField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y55._HE, LTRG) // _HE_: High-Edge > > LTRG = ITRG /* \_SB_.TPM_._SRS.ITRG */ > > CreateBitField (Arg0, 0x7A, ILVL) > > - CreateBitField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y58._LL, LLVL) // _LL_: Low Level > > + CreateBitField (RES0, \_SB.TPM._Y55._LL, LLVL) // _LL_: Low Level > > LLVL = ILVL /* \_SB_.TPM_._SRS.ILVL */ > > If ((((TID0 & 0x0F) == Zero) || ((TID0 & 0x0F > > ) == 0x0F))) > > > > This delta from "acpidump for Dell XPS 9310 (with Qualcomm QCA6390)" to > > "acpidump output from a Dell XPS 13 9310 that no longer has a problem" > > in SSDT7. The bug I'm referring to is > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920510 > > > > Looks to me just using a different label. > > Yes, although I have the feeling that does indicate that their are possibly > other changes under the hood. The 0x00000000c interrupt referred to seems to > be an interrupt directly on the APIC, which means that it is a GPIO in direct-irq > mode with level vs edge interrupt mode selection (pullup/down settings is all > directly done by the BIOS. > > I'm aware that misconfiguring those settings (which Linux cannot see) was > an issue with the TPM IRQ on some Lenovo models, maybe the same is going on > here; and later BIOS versions contain a fix (and this somehow also has > changed the label in the DSDT ?). > > > What if we just set "interrupts=0" explicitly for STM0125 HID since the > > workaround seems to work according to the report? > > That sounds like a reasonable workaround. I just came from two week leave. I'll create a patch that adds such workaround when I'm done with purging all the email /Jarkko
