> On Sep 7, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 20:51 -0700, Hao Wu wrote:
>> The Atmel TPM 1.2 chips crash with error
>> `tpm_try_transmit: send(): error -62` since kernel 4.14.
>> It is observed from the kernel log after running `tpm_sealdata -z`.
>> The error thrown from the command is as follows
>> ```
>> $ tpm_sealdata -z
>> Tspi_Key_LoadKey failed: 0x00001087 - layer=tddl,
>> code=0087 (135), I/O error
>> ```
>>
>> The issue was reproduced with the following Atmel TPM chip:
>> ```
>> $ tpm_version
>> T0 TPM 1.2 Version Info:
>> Chip Version: 1.2.66.1
>> Spec Level: 2
>> Errata Revision: 3
>> TPM Vendor ID: ATML
>> TPM Version: 01010000
>> Manufacturer Info: 41544d4c
>> ```
>>
>> The root cause of the issue is due to the TPM calls to msleep()
>> were replaced with usleep_range() [1], which reduces
>> the actual timeout. Via experiments, it is observed that
>> the original msleep(5) actually sleeps for 15ms.
>> Because of a known timeout issue in Atmel TPM 1.2 chip,
>> the shorter timeout than 15ms can cause the error described above.
>>
>> A few further changes in kernel 4.16 [2] and 4.18 [3, 4] further
>> reduced the timeout to less than 1ms. With experiments,
>> the problematic timeout in the latest kernel is the one
>> for `wait_for_tpm_stat`.
>>
>> To fix it, the patch reverts the timeout of `wait_for_tpm_stat`
>> to 15ms for all Atmel TPM 1.2 chips, but leave it untouched
>> for Ateml TPM 2.0 chip, and chips from other vendors.
>> As explained above, the chosen 15ms timeout is
>> the actual timeout before this issue introduced,
>> thus the old value is used here.
>> Particularly, TPM_ATML_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT_MIN is set to 14700us,
>> TPM_ATML_TIMEOUT_WAIT_STAT_MIN is set to 15000us according to
>> the existing TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US (300us).
>> The fixed has been tested in the system with the affected Atmel chip
>> with no issues observed after boot up.
>>
>> References:
>> [1] 9f3fc7bcddcb tpm: replace msleep() with usleep_range() in TPM
>> 1.2/2.0 generic drivers
>> [2] cf151a9a44d5 tpm: reduce tpm polling delay in tpm_tis_core
>> [3] 59f5a6b07f64 tpm: reduce poll sleep time in tpm_transmit()
>> [4] 424eaf910c32 tpm: reduce polling time to usecs for even finer
>> granularity
>>
>> Fixes: 9f3fc7bcddcb ("tpm: replace msleep() with usleep_range() in TPM 1.2/2.0 generic drivers")
>> Link: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-integrity/patch/20200926223150.109645-1-hao.wu@xxxxxxxxxx/
>> Signed-off-by: Hao Wu <hao.wu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v5:
>> - Rename variables according to feedbacks
>> - Move timeout min/max to tpm_tis_data
>>
>> v4:
>> - Move timeout constants to drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
>> - Cleanup unnecessary inline comment
>>
>> v3:
>> - removes unnecessary condition check in `wait_for_tpm_stat`
>>
>> v2:
>> - follow the existing way to define two timeouts (min and max)
>> for ATMEL chip, thus keep the exact timeout logic for
>> non-ATEML chips.
>> - limit the timeout increase to only ATMEL TPM 1.2 chips,
>> because it is not an issue for TPM 2.0 chips yet.
>>
>> Test Plan:
>> - Run fixed kernel with ATMEL TPM chips and see crash
>> has been fixed.
>> - Run fixed kernel with non-ATMEL TPM chips, and confirm
>> the timeout has not been changed.
>>
>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h | 4 ++++
>> include/linux/tpm.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>
> I just noticed that these are part of the same email thread from
> lore.kernel.org. Please always use separate thread. E.g. I'm not sure if
> this would play out well with tooling such as b4 that can pick up patch
> sets from lore.
I see. I thought I need to chain these. Will send a separate one.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>> index 55b9d3965ae1..29de383aec5f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>> @@ -79,9 +79,10 @@ static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
>> goto again;
>> }
>> } else {
>> + struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>
> Move this declaration to the beginning of the function.
OK
>> do {
>> - usleep_range(TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN,
>> - TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX);
>> + usleep_range(priv->timeout_min,
>> + priv->timeout_max);
>> status = chip->ops->status(chip);
>> if ((status & mask) == mask)
>> return 0;
>> @@ -934,7 +935,23 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
>> chip->timeout_b = msecs_to_jiffies(TIS_TIMEOUT_B_MAX);
>> chip->timeout_c = msecs_to_jiffies(TIS_TIMEOUT_C_MAX);
>> chip->timeout_d = msecs_to_jiffies(TIS_TIMEOUT_D_MAX);
>> + priv->timeout_min = TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN;
>> + priv->timeout_max = TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX;
>> priv->phy_ops = phy_ops;
>> +
>> + rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_DID_VID(0), &vendor);
>> + if (rc < 0)
>> + goto out_err;
>> +
>> + priv->manufacturer_id = vendor;
>> +
>> + if (priv->manufacturer_id == TPM_VID_ATML &&
>> + !(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)) {
>> + /* If TPM chip is 1.2 ATMEL chip, timeout need to be relaxed*/
>
> A ' ' character missing before the last asterisk.
>
> Also the comment is just in English the same exact thing already
> clearly expressed by the if-statement, so it's better that you
> just remove the comment altogether.
Sure will remove it
>
>> + priv->timeout_min = TIS_TIMEOUT_MIN_ATML;
>> + priv->timeout_max = TIS_TIMEOUT_MAX_ATML;
>> + }
>> +
>> dev_set_drvdata(&chip->dev, priv);
>>
>> if (is_bsw()) {
>> @@ -977,12 +994,6 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
>> if (rc)
>> goto out_err;
>>
>> - rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_DID_VID(0), &vendor);
>> - if (rc < 0)
>> - goto out_err;
>> -
>> - priv->manufacturer_id = vendor;
>> -
>> rc = tpm_tis_read8(priv, TPM_RID(0), &rid);
>> if (rc < 0)
>> goto out_err;
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
>> index 9b2d32a59f67..c33f27c929f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
>> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ enum tis_defaults {
>> TIS_MEM_LEN = 0x5000,
>> TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT = 750, /* ms */
>> TIS_LONG_TIMEOUT = 2000, /* 2 sec */
>> + TIS_TIMEOUT_MIN_ATML = 14700, /* usecs */
>> + TIS_TIMEOUT_MAX_ATML = 15000, /* usecs */
>> };
>>
>> /* Some timeout values are needed before it is known whether the chip is
>> @@ -97,6 +99,8 @@ struct tpm_tis_data {
>> wait_queue_head_t read_queue;
>> const struct tpm_tis_phy_ops *phy_ops;
>> unsigned short rng_quality;
>> + unsigned int timeout_min; /* usecs */
>> + unsigned int timeout_max; /* usecs */
>> };
>>
>> struct tpm_tis_phy_ops {
>> diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h
>> index aa11fe323c56..12d827734686 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/tpm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/tpm.h
>> @@ -269,6 +269,7 @@ enum tpm2_cc_attrs {
>> #define TPM_VID_INTEL 0x8086
>> #define TPM_VID_WINBOND 0x1050
>> #define TPM_VID_STM 0x104A
>> +#define TPM_VID_ATML 0x1114
>>
>> enum tpm_chip_flags {
>> TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2 = BIT(1),
>
> Looking good other than a those minor nitpicks. Please send the next as
> a separate thread, and *not* as response, so that it can be picked up.
>
> /Jarkko
>
Thanks!
Hao
