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 20:47:40 +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: <20190131184739.GA29056@linux.intel.com>
References: <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>
 <20190131170603.GA18349@linux.intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wh+TBaphuAbHyNMdGYz=JM6tcuAfAsF_Kgthdev7oj2uA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wh+TBaphuAbHyNMdGYz=JM6tcuAfAsF_Kgthdev7oj2uA@mail.gmail.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 09:43:42AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:06 AM Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Found something that *does* fix the issue. If I replace memcpy_*io()
> > calls with regular memcpy(), the driver works and all my tests pass.
> 
> That's not surprising, since that's what we used to do. And it's
> horribly wrong because "memcpy()" can do things that are horribly
> wrong on IO accesses. Like doing them twice, but alternatively also
> "copy one byte at a time" which generally works, but is horrendously
> slow for IO.

Yup, was just a sanity check.

> Can you check *which* memcpy_*io() triggers the issue? Maybe by
> "bisecting" them (first perhaps on a file-by-file basis, and then
> within a file).

Already did that. See my follow-up.

/Jarkko