Re: [PATCH] tpm: ibmvtpm: Avoid error message when process gets signal while waiting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 7/29/21 8:57 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:39:18AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 7/28/21 5:50 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:00:51PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 7/26/21 10:42 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 12:25:05PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
From: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

When rngd is run as root then lots of these types of message will appear
in the kernel log if the TPM has been configure to provide random bytes:

[ 7406.275163] tpm tpm0: tpm_transmit: tpm_recv: error -4

The issue is caused by the following call that is interrupted while
waiting for the TPM's response.

sig = wait_event_interruptible(ibmvtpm->wq,
                                  !ibmvtpm->tpm_processing_cmd);

The solution is to use wait_event() instead.
Why?
So it becomes uninterruptible and these error messages go away.
We do not want to make a process uninterruptible. That would prevent
killing it.
I guess we'll have to go back to this one then:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-integrity/msg16741.html
Makes a heck lot more sense.

There's a typo in the commit message: PM_STATUS_BUSY

Also the commit message lacks explanation of this change completely:

@@ -690,8 +688,15 @@ static int tpm_ibmvtpm_probe(struct vio_dev *vio_dev,
  		goto init_irq_cleanup;
  	}
- if (!strcmp(id->compat, "IBM,vtpm20")) {
+
+	if (!strcmp(id->compat, "IBM,vtpm20"))
  		chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2;
+
+	rc = tpm_get_timeouts(chip);
+	if (rc)
+		goto init_irq_cleanup;
+
+	if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) {
  		rc = tpm2_get_cc_attrs_tbl(chip);

The last paragraph should be rewritten in imperative form.


will fix.


Finally, you could simplify the fix by simply changing the type of
tpm_processing_cmd to u8, and just set it to 'true' and 'false',
which will set the first bit.

Are you sure? It's a bit mask we are using this with. Using 'true' for these type of operations doesn't sound right.

        u8 status = chip->ops->status(chip);
        if ((status & chip->ops->req_complete_mask) ==
            chip->ops->req_complete_val)

            goto out_recv;

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c#L108

@@ -457,7 +455,7 @@ static const struct tpm_class_ops tpm_ibmvtpm = {
 	.send = tpm_ibmvtpm_send,
 	.cancel = tpm_ibmvtpm_cancel,
 	.status = tpm_ibmvtpm_status,
-	.req_complete_mask = 0,
+	.req_complete_mask = TPM_STATUS_BUSY,
 	.req_complete_val = 0,
 	.req_canceled = tpm_ibmvtpm_req_canceled,
 };


   Stefan


/Jarkko



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux