On Thu, 2022-05-12 at 08:21 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 18:16 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 01:29:03PM +0200, Johannes Holland wrote:
> > > To comply with protocol requirements, minimum polling times must
> > > often
> > > be adhered to. Therefore, a macro like tpm_msleep() should sleep
> > > at
> > > least the given amount of time (not up to the given period). Have
> > > tpm_msleep() sleep at least the given number of milliseconds.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Holland <johannes.holland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > index 2163c6ee0d36..0971b55fffe3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> > > @@ -185,8 +185,8 @@ int tpm_pm_resume(struct device *dev);
> > >
> > > static inline void tpm_msleep(unsigned int delay_msec)
> > > {
> > > - usleep_range((delay_msec * 1000) - TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US,
> > > - delay_msec * 1000);
> > > + usleep_range(delay_msec * 1000, (delay_msec * 1000)
> > > + + TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US);
> > > };
> > >
> > > int tpm_chip_start(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
> >
> > For this I would really like to hear a 2nd opinion from Nayna and
> > Mimi.
>
> This patch reverts commit 5ef924d9e2e8 ("tpm: use tpm_msleep() value
> as max delay"). Are you experiencing TPM issues that require it?
I am:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/1531328689.3260.8.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
I'm about 24h into a soak test of the patch with no TPM failure so far.
I think it probably needs to run another 24h just to be sure, but it
does seem the theory is sound (my TPM gets annoyed by being poked too
soon) so reverting 5ef924d9e2e8 looks to be the correct action. The
only other ways I've found to fix this are either revert the
usleep_range patch altogether or increase the timings:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/1531329074.3260.9.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Which obviously pushes the min past whatever issue my TPM is having
even with 5ef924d9e2e8 applied.
Given that even the commit message for 5ef924d9e2e8 admits it only
shaves about 12% off the TPM response time, that would appear to be an
optimization too far if it's going to cause some TPMs to fail.
James
