Hi, On 20.04.22 at 07:30, 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. Ok, we could extend tpm_tis_flags by a flag "TPM_TIS_USE_THREADED_IRQ" for this. > > # [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. > Ok, I will split the fix for the irq test into two patches then. > > # [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. > Yes, I can see that point. > BR, Jarkko > Thanks a lot for the review. I will prepare new patches with the suggested changes. Best regards, Lino
