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:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:50:28 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc:     Calvin Owens <calvinowens@fb.com>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make timeout logic simpler and more robust
Message-ID: <20190312125028.GC9243@linux.intel.com>
References: <358e89ed2b766d51b5f57abf31ab7a925ac63379.1552348123.git.calvinowens@fb.com>
 <1552350463.23859.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1552350463.23859.8.camel@HansenPartnership.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 Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 05:27:43PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 16:54 -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > e're having lots of problems with TPM commands timing out, and we're
> > seeing these problems across lots of different hardware (both v1/v2).
> > 
> > I instrumented the driver to collect latency data, but I wasn't able
> > to find any specific timeout to fix: it seems like many of them are
> > too aggressive. So I tried replacing all the timeout logic with a
> > single universal long timeout, and found that makes our TPMs 100%
> > reliable.
> > 
> > Given that this timeout logic is very complex, problematic, and
> > appears to serve no real purpose, I propose simply deleting all of
> > it.
> 
> "no real purpose" is a bit strong given that all these timeouts are
> standards mandated.  The purpose stated by the standards is that there
> needs to be a way of differentiating the TPM crashed from the TPM is
> taking a very long time to respond.  For a normally functioning TPM it
> looks complex and unnecessary, but for a malfunctioning one it's a
> lifesaver.

Standards should be only followed when they make practical sense and
ignored when not. The range is only up to 2s anyway.

/Jarkko