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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Detach page allocation from tpm_buf
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 03 Oct 2019 11:24:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20191003113313.GD8933@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190925134842.19305-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
         <20190926124635.GA6040@linux.intel.com>
         <20190926131227.GA6582@linux.intel.com>
         <1570020024.4999.104.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <20191003113211.GC8933@linux.intel.com>
         <20191003113313.GD8933@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1570116261.4421.199.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 14:33 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

> > > Will this delay the TPM initialization, causing IMA to go into "TPM
> > > bypass mode"?
> > 
> > Of course it will delay the init.
> > 
> > As I've stated before the real fix for the bypass issue would be
> > to make TPM as part of the core but this has not received much
> > appeal. I think I've sent patch for this once.

IMA initialization is way later than the TPM.  IMA is on the
late_initcall(), while the TPM is on the subsys_initcall().  I'm not
sure moving the TPM to core would make a difference.  There must be a
way of deferring IMA until after the TPM has been initialized.  Any
suggestions would be much appreciated.

(The TPM on the Pi still has a dependency on clock.) 

> It has been like that people reject a fix to a race condition and
> then I get complains on adding minor latency to the init because
> of the existing race. It is ridicilous, really.

I agree, but adding any latency will cause a regression.

Mimi