Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:06:03 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        tomas.winkler@intel.com
Subject: Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to
 security/next-general
Message-ID: <20190131170603.GA18349@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190120160413.GB30478@linux.intel.com>
 <20190122010218.GA26713@linux.intel.com>
 <20190122025836.GH25163@ziepe.ca>
 <20190122132910.GA2720@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wgdOfi+zVVfKDDqJMs2Y7Lq0uufmP8Hx8JzQFA9UzNrBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190123153638.GA8727@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHk-=whgoJ8aAYH37hnyFjZ8jbYyswyf9wZZ82tTFL5f2he+6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190129132016.GA1602@linux.intel.com>
 <20190131122606.GA12470@linux.intel.com>
 <20190131160437.GA5629@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190131160437.GA5629@linux.intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 06:04:37PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 02:26:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:20:16PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 07:43:30AM +1300, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 4:36 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it just that this particular hardware always happened to trigger
> > > > > > the ERMS case (ie "rep movsb")?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the particular snippet in question:
> > > > >
> > > > > memcpy_fromio(buf, priv->rsp, 6);
> > > > > expected = be32_to_cpup((__be32 *) &buf[2]);
> > > > > if (expected > count || expected < 6)
> > > > >         return -EIO;
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, strange.
> > > > 
> > > > So what *used* to happen is that the memcpy_fromio() would just expand
> > > > as a "memcpy()", and in this case, gcc would then inline the memcpy().
> > > > In fact, gcc does it as a 4-byte access and a two-byte access from
> > > > what I can tell.
> > > 
> > > I verified, and it is exactly as you stated:
> > > 
> > >    0xffffffff814aaa33 <+51>:	mov    (%rax),%edx
> > >    0xffffffff814aaa35 <+53>:	mov    %edx,0x0(%rbp)
> > >    0xffffffff814aaa38 <+56>:	movzwl 0x4(%rax),%eax
> > >    0xffffffff814aaa3c <+60>:	mov    %ax,0x4(%rbp)
> > > 
> > > And your new version does exactly the same thing to the first six bytes
> > > (with different opcode, but the same memory access pattern).
> > 
> > I think I have found the root cause:
> > 
> > memcpy_fromio(&__rsp_pa, &priv->regs_t->ctrl_rsp_pa, 8);
> > 
> > This is from crb_map_io(). This should be read as quad word.
> > 
> > I'll change it to ioread64() and see what happens. I don't know why it
> > even has used memcpy_fromio() in the first place. I guess, when I first
> > implemented the driver, I used that for no logical reason, and it has
> > worked since up until now.
> 
> No, cannot be it. If you couldn't read it in two dwords, then it would
> have been always broken with 32-bit build.
> 
> Anyway, just in case, I will check what address it prints out.

Found something that *does* fix the issue. If I replace memcpy_*io()
calls with regular memcpy(), the driver works and all my tests pass.

/Jarkko