Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: verify locality released before returning from release_locality

[Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>]

Hello,

Top posting, sorry.

I don't know if I did it well to include the "Tested-by" tag because I 
don't see that the patch has landed in linus branch already.

And as far as I understand, this will not be in the upcoming 4.17 
release as we are already late in the cycle?

Kind regards,

Laurent Bigonville


Le 11/05/18 à 21:02, Laurent Bigonville a écrit :
> Le 05/05/18 à 22:03, Jerry Snitselaar a écrit :
>> On Sat May 05 18, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>>> For certain tpm chips releasing locality can take long enough that a
>>> subsequent call to request_locality will see the locality as being
>>> active when the access register is read in check_locality. So check
>>> that the locality has been released before returning from
>>> release_locality.
>>>
>>> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
>>> Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
>>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
>>> Reported-by: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 47 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c 
>>> b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>>> index 5a1f47b43947..d547cd309dbd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
>>> @@ -143,13 +143,58 @@ static bool check_locality(struct tpm_chip 
>>> *chip, int l)
>>>     return false;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool locality_inactive(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>>> +    int rc;
>>> +    u8 access;
>>> +
>>> +    rc = tpm_tis_read8(priv, TPM_ACCESS(l), &access);
>>> +    if (rc < 0)
>>> +        return false;
>>> +
>>> +    if ((access & (TPM_ACCESS_VALID | TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY))
>>> +        == TPM_ACCESS_VALID)
>>> +        return true;
>>> +
>>> +    return false;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int release_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>>> {
>>>     struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>>> +    unsigned long stop, timeout;
>>> +    long rc;
>>>
>>>     tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_ACCESS(l), TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY);
>>>
>>> -    return 0;
>>> +    stop = jiffies + chip->timeout_a;
>>> +
>>> +    if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ) {
>>> +again:
>>> +        timeout = stop - jiffies;
>>> +        if ((long)timeout <= 0)
>>> +            return -1;
>>> +
>>> +        rc = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->int_queue,
>>> +                              (locality_inactive(chip, l)),
>>> +                              timeout);
>>> +
>>> +        if (rc > 0)
>>> +            return 0;
>>> +
>>> +        if (rc == -ERESTARTSYS && freezing(current)) {
>>> +            clear_thread_flag(TIF_SIGPENDING);
>>> +            goto again;
>>> +        }
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        do {
>>> +            if (locality_inactive(chip, l))
>>> +                return 0;
>>> +            tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT);
>>> +        } while (time_before(jiffies, stop));
>>> +    }
>>> +    return -1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>>> -- 
>>> 2.15.0
>>>
>>
>> Laurent,
>>
>> Can you try this patch with your system since it is the one
>> that has exhibited the problem so far. I've tested on a
>> tpm2.0 and tpm1.2 system here.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jerry
>