WEC TPMs (in 1.2 mode) and NTC (in 2.0 mode) have been observer to
frequently, but intermittently, fail probe with:
tpm_tis: probe of 00:09 failed with error -1
Added debugging output showed that the request_locality in
tpm_tis_core_init succeeds, but then the tpm_chip_start fails when its
call to tpm_request_locality -> request_locality fails.
The access register in check_locality would show:
0x80 TPM_ACCESS_VALID
0x82 TPM_ACCESS_VALID | TPM_ACCESS_REQUEST_USE
0x80 TPM_ACCESS_VALID
continuing until it times out. TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY (0x20) doesn't
get set which would end the wait.
My best guess is something racy was going on between release_locality's
write and request_locality's write. There is no wait in
release_locality to ensure that the locality is released, so the
subsequent request_locality could confuse the TPM?
tpm_chip_start grabs locality 0, and updates chip->locality. Call that
before the TPM_INT_ENABLE write, and drop the explicit request/release
calls. tpm_chip_stop performs the release. With this, we switch to
using chip->locality instead of priv->locality. The probe failure is
not seen after this.
commit 0ef333f5ba7f ("tpm: add request_locality before write
TPM_INT_ENABLE") added a request_locality/release_locality pair around
tpm_tis_write32 TPM_INT_ENABLE, but there is a read of
TPM_INT_ENABLE for the intmask which should also have the locality
grabbed. tpm_chip_start is moved before that to have the locality open
during the read.
Fixes: 0ef333f5ba7f ("tpm: add request_locality before write TPM_INT_ENABLE")
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Jason Andryuk <jandryuk@xxxxxxxxx>
---
The probe failure was seen on 5.4, 5.15 and 5.17.
commit e42acf104d6e ("tpm_tis: Clean up locality release") removed the
release wait. I haven't tried, but re-introducing that would probably
fix this issue. It's hard to know apriori when a synchronous wait is
needed, and they don't seem to be needed typically. Re-introducing the
wait would re-introduce a wait in all cases.
Surrounding the read of TPM_INT_ENABLE with grabbing the locality may
not be necessary? It looks like the code only grabs a locality for
writing, but that asymmetry is surprising to me.
tpm_chip and tpm_tis_data track the locality separately. Should the
tpm_tis_data one be removed so they don't get out of sync?
---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 20 ++++++++------------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
index dc56b976d816..529c241800c0 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
@@ -986,8 +986,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
goto out_err;
}
+ /* Grabs locality 0. */
+ rc = tpm_chip_start(chip);
+ if (rc)
+ goto out_err;
+
/* Take control of the TPM's interrupt hardware and shut it off */
- rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), &intmask);
+ rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(chip->locality), &intmask);
if (rc < 0)
goto out_err;
@@ -995,19 +1000,10 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
TPM_INTF_DATA_AVAIL_INT | TPM_INTF_STS_VALID_INT;
intmask &= ~TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE;
- rc = request_locality(chip, 0);
- if (rc < 0) {
- rc = -ENODEV;
- goto out_err;
- }
-
- tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), intmask);
- release_locality(chip, 0);
+ tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(chip->locality), intmask);
- rc = tpm_chip_start(chip);
- if (rc)
- goto out_err;
rc = tpm2_probe(chip);
+ /* Releases locality 0. */
tpm_chip_stop(chip);
if (rc)
goto out_err;
--
2.36.1
