On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 02:26:05PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 09:31:30PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 7:28 PM EET, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 07:12:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 3:02 PM EET, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > > > It looks like the timeout_b is used exclusively as the ready timeout *),
> > > > > with various sources of the value depending on chip type.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then increasing it should not cause any problem other than the kernel
> > > > > waiting longer when the TPM chip is really stuck.
> > > > >
> > > > > * There is one instance of use of timeout_b for TPM_STS_VALID in
> > > > > st33zp24_pm_resume.
> > > >
> > > > Possible for you to give a shot for patch and try it out for a while?
> > > > I'm fine with 2x, or even 4x in this case.
> > >
> > > I will see what I can do. It will definitely take a while.
> > >
> > > How would you like to multiply it?
> > >
> > > At the sime the timeout_b is assigned, or at the time it's used?
> > >
> > > Any specific patch that you have in mind?
> >
> > I'll think about this a bit and send a patch with RFC tag. Might take
> > to late next week.
>
> The ready timeout is not the only one exceeded:
>
> > Jan 29 19:01:55 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 357: ready: Timed out (2232 of 2000 ms)
> > Jan 29 19:01:55 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 357: ready: Took (2232 of 2000 ms)
> > Jan 30 09:08:20 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: ready: Timed out (2228 of 2000 ms)
> > Jan 30 09:08:20 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: ready: Took (2228 of 2000 ms)
> > Jan 30 14:26:16 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Timed out (540 of 200 ms)
> > Jan 30 14:26:16 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Took (540 of 200 ms)
> > Jan 30 23:25:13 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 354: stat: Timed out (2224 of 200 ms)
> > Jan 30 23:25:13 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 354: stat: Took (2224 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 01 05:25:33 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 357: ready: Timed out (2228 of 2000 ms)
> > Feb 01 05:25:33 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 357: ready: Took (2228 of 2000 ms)
> > Feb 01 07:02:53 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Timed out (556 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 01 07:02:53 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Took (556 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 01 09:26:22 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Timed out (540 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 01 09:26:22 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Took (540 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 02:45:35 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 379: stat: Timed out (272 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 02:45:35 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 379: stat: Took (272 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 03:40:04 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Timed out (536 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 03:40:04 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Took (536 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 04:09:50 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 357: ready: Timed out (2236 of 2000 ms)
> > Feb 02 04:09:50 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 357: ready: Took (2236 of 2000 ms)
> > Feb 02 09:57:41 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Timed out (540 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 09:57:41 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Took (540 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 10:59:00 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Timed out (536 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 02 10:59:00 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 353: stat: Took (536 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 03 03:58:09 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 354: stat: Timed out (540 of 200 ms)
> > Feb 03 03:58:09 localhost kernel: tpm tpm0: tpm_tis_send_data: 354: stat: Took (540 of 200 ms)
>
> While the ready timeout is quite consistently exceeded by around 230ms
> so far the stat timeout a few lines lower is less consistent.
Interesting. TPM2_CC_CONTEXT_LOAD (353) / TPM2_CC_FLUSH_CONTEXT (357) /
TPM2_CC_CONTEXT_SAVE (354) I kinda expect to maybe take a bit longer,
but TPM2_CC_GET_RANDOM (379) is a little surprising.
> Failure is observed with another chip type as well:
>
> localhost kernel: tpm_tis MSFT0101:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x1B, rev-id
> 22)
>
> TPM Device
> Vendor ID: IFX
> Specification Version: 2.0
> Firmware Revision: 7.83
> Description: TPM 2.0, ManufacturerID: IFX , Firmware Version: 7.83.3358.0
> Characteristics:
> Family configurable via firmware update
> Family configurable via OEM proprietary mechanism
> OEM-specific Information: 0x00000000
That looks like an SLB9670, not running the latest firmware (7.85). I
think that might have the errata I've been trying to work around; my
current patch in testing (with logging to see how effective it is):
commit d8c680ec34e7f42f731e7d64605a670fb7b3b4d1
Author: Jonathan McDowell <noodles@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Aug 19 09:22:46 2024 -0700
tpm: Workaround failed command reception on Infineon devices
Some Infineon devices have a issue where the status register will get
stuck with a quick REQUEST_USE / COMMAND_READY sequence. The work around
is to retry the command submission. Add appropriate logic to do this in
the send path.
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
index fdef214b9f6b..561d6801e299 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
@@ -464,7 +464,12 @@ static int tpm_tis_send_data(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID, chip->timeout_c,
&priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
- rc = -ETIME;
+ if (test_bit(TPM_TIS_STATUS_WORKAROUND, &priv->flags)) {
+ dev_err(&chip->dev, "Timed out waiting for status valid in send, retrying\n");
+ rc = -EAGAIN;
+ } else {
+ rc = -ETIME;
+ }
goto out_err;
}
status = tpm_tis_status(chip);
@@ -481,7 +486,13 @@ static int tpm_tis_send_data(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID, chip->timeout_c,
&priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
- rc = -ETIME;
+
+ if (test_bit(TPM_TIS_STATUS_WORKAROUND, &priv->flags)) {
+ dev_err(&chip->dev, "Timed out waiting for status after send, retrying\n");
+ rc = -EAGAIN;
+ } else {
+ rc = -ETIME;
+ }
goto out_err;
}
status = tpm_tis_status(chip);
@@ -546,10 +557,13 @@ static int tpm_tis_send_main(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
if (rc >= 0)
/* Data transfer done successfully */
break;
- else if (rc != -EIO)
+ else if (rc != -EAGAIN && rc != -EIO)
/* Data transfer failed, not recoverable */
return rc;
}
+ if (try)
+ dev_info(&chip->dev,
+ "Took %d attempts to send command\n", try + 1);
/* go and do it */
rc = tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_STS(priv->locality), TPM_STS_GO);
@@ -563,6 +577,8 @@ static int tpm_tis_send_main(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
if (wait_for_tpm_stat
(chip, TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID, dur,
&priv->read_queue, false) < 0) {
+ dev_err(&chip->dev,
+ "Timed out waiting for command to complete after send\n");
rc = -ETIME;
goto out_err;
}
@@ -1144,6 +1160,9 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
priv->timeout_max = TIS_TIMEOUT_MAX_ATML;
}
+ if (priv->manufacturer_id == TPM_VID_IFX)
+ set_bit(TPM_TIS_STATUS_WORKAROUND, &priv->flags);
+
if (is_bsw()) {
priv->ilb_base_addr = ioremap(INTEL_LEGACY_BLK_BASE_ADDR,
ILB_REMAP_SIZE);
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
index 690ad8e9b731..ce97b58dc005 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ enum tpm_tis_flags {
TPM_TIS_INVALID_STATUS = 1,
TPM_TIS_DEFAULT_CANCELLATION = 2,
TPM_TIS_IRQ_TESTED = 3,
+ TPM_TIS_STATUS_WORKAROUND = 4,
};
struct tpm_tis_data {
diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h
index 20a40ade8030..6c3125300c00 100644
--- a/include/linux/tpm.h
+++ b/include/linux/tpm.h
@@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ enum tpm2_cc_attrs {
#define TPM_VID_WINBOND 0x1050
#define TPM_VID_STM 0x104A
#define TPM_VID_ATML 0x1114
+#define TPM_VID_IFX 0x15D1
enum tpm_chip_flags {
TPM_CHIP_FLAG_BOOTSTRAPPED = BIT(0),
--
Web [ "A true friend knows who you are...but likes you anyway." ]
site: https:// [ ] Made by
www.earth.li/~noodles/ [ ] HuggieTag 0.0.24
