On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 09:38:04AM -0500, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > > On 6/22/2023 7:36 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hi, Thorsten here, the Linux kernel's regression tracker. Top-posting > > > for once, to make this easily accessible to everyone. > > > > > > As Linus will likely release 6.4 on this or the following Sunday a quick > > > question: is there any hope this regression might be fixed any time > > > soon? > > No. > > > > I have added the author of the commit to Cc, maybe they can help? > > > > The immediate question is, is it expected for chip->ops to be NULL in > > this path? Obviously on actual AMD systems that isn't the case, > > otherwise the code would crash there. But is the fact that chip->ops is > > NULL a bug in the ibmvtpm driver, or a possibility that has been > > overlooked by the checking code. > > > > cheers > > All that code assumes that the TPM is still functional which > seems not to be the case for your TPM. > > This should fix it: > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c > index 5be91591cb3b..7082b031741e 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c > @@ -525,6 +525,9 @@ static bool tpm_amd_is_rng_defective(struct tpm_chip > *chip) > u64 version; > int ret; > > + if (!chip->ops) > + return false; > + > if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)) > return false; Should tpm_amd_is_rng_defective compile to nothing on non-x86 architectures? This code is all about working around an issue with the AMD fTPM, right? Regards, Jerry
