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:   Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:22:32 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.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: <20190313132232.GB4261@linux.intel.com>
References: <358e89ed2b766d51b5f57abf31ab7a925ac63379.1552348123.git.calvinowens@fb.com>
 <1552410298.24794.73.camel@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1552410298.24794.73.camel@linux.ibm.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 Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 01:04:58PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 16:54 -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > We'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.
> 
> Normally before sending such a massive change like this, included in
> the bug report or patch description, there would be some indication as
> to which kernel introduced a regression. ?Has this always been a
> problem? ?Is this something new? ?How new?

Also: is the problem in timeouts, durations or both. Does make sense
to fix something that isn't broken...

/Jarkko