On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 08:30 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > n Sat, 2022-03-26 at 04:24 +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > On 25.03.22 at 13:32, Michael Niewöhner wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Lino, I'd be happy to test the patches, when you have time and interest to > > > > > work > > > > > on this again! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Michael > > > > > > > > It's quite easy to test them out. Both fixes are in the mainline GIT tree. > > > > E.g. give a shot rc1, and please report if any issues persists to: > > > > > > > > linux-integrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > BR, Jarkko > > > > > > I don't see Linos patches on mainline. Also, the series included four patches: > > > [PATCH v3 0/4] Fixes for TPM interrupt handling > > > [PATCH v3 1/4] tpm: Use a threaded interrupt handler > > > [PATCH v3 2/4] tpm: Simplify locality handling > > > [PATCH v3 3/4] tpm: Fix test for interrupts > > > [PATCH v3 4/4] tpm: Only enable supported irqs > > > > > > Three of them are relevant for the interrupt problem, which is still present in > > > mainline, as these patches were refused: > > > [PATCH v3 1/4] tpm: Use a threaded interrupt handler > > > [PATCH v3 2/4] tpm: Simplify locality handling > > > [PATCH v3 3/4] tpm: Fix test for interrupts > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > You are right, the interrupts are still not working in the mainline kernel. > > I would gladly make another attempt to fix this but rather step by step > > than in a series that tries to fix (different) things at once. > > > > A first step could be to have a sleepable context for the interrupt handling, > > since in case of SPI the accesses to the irq status register may sleep. > > > > I sent a patch for this purpose once, but it seems to have gone lost: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210620023444.14684-1-LinoSanfilippo@xxxxxx/ > > > > > > Best regards, > > Lino > > I went these through one by one. > > # Above linked patch > > Boolean parameters are considered bad. I.e. use named flags > instead. This is for above linked patch. > > # [PATCH v3 3/4] tpm: Fix test for interrupts > > 1. Please remove "unnecessarily complicated" sentence because > it cannot be evaluated. It's your opinion, which might perhaps > be correct, but it is irrelevant for any possible patch > description. > 2. There's no such thing as "fix by re-implementation". Please > explain instead code change is relevant for the bug fix. > 3. If set_bit() et al necessarily to fix a possible race condition > you need to have a separate patch for that. > > To move forward, start with a better summary such as > > "tpm: move interrupt test to tpm_tis_probe_irq_single()" > > I'd also either revert the change for flags, or alternatively > move it to separate patch explaining race condition. Otherwise, > there's no argument of saying that using set_bit() is more > proper. This will make the change more localized. > > > # [PATCH v3 2/4] tpm: Simplify locality handling > > "As a side-effect these modifications fix a bug which results in the > following warning when using TPM 2:" > > Generally speaking, the simplifications should be done on top of code > that does not have known bugs, even if the simplification renders out > the bug. This is because then we have code that have potentially unknown > unknown bugs. > > I hope you see my point. The problem with these patches were then > and is still that they intermix bug fixes and other modifications and > thus cannot be taken in. I.e. to move forward create first localized fixes, and only after those clean ups if there is point. Removing code (like in 2/4) is not a bug fix fo anything. This not to say that some changes would be illegit, I'm only saying that the patches are badly scoped. BR, Jarkko
