Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
IronPort-SDR: l+b7n0Rwp/xVrCT4yZ8JpHIyghTGkF1rJERRMwQ5+yAM6yKQ3gIoYRsrERqzaxm1qZpPqkRcyS
 6FX/Y7o/BZqw==
IronPort-SDR: VIXRo54WpUwzMQnC8rn7LxjmYU6ZeHdgGrpZ5NsbRgbwQY9+Ab9vF0ehhRLsN/1BmiJOk/K/nz
 Gupa6XT/VOZA==
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 03:43:55 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Mario.Limonciello@dell.com
Cc:     James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, peterhuewe@gmx.de,
        jgg@ziepe.ca, arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        jeffrin@rajagiritech.edu.in, alex@guzman.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Revert "tpm: fix invalid locking in NONBLOCKING
 mode"
Message-ID: <20200528004355.GA5877@linux.intel.com>
References: <20200526183213.20720-1-mario.limonciello@dell.com>
 <1590520454.11810.40.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <ccf055cbf1a14f28bc95a6b02e29a2f6@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM>
 <1590521924.15108.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <37da2695fe6de09d69e27b77f3e29e068596205f.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <4d1a53596af44c7b84f97aa4ce04a53c@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4d1a53596af44c7b84f97aa4ce04a53c@AUSX13MPC105.AMER.DELL.COM>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:18:56PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:09 PM
> > To: James Bottomley; Limonciello, Mario; peterhuewe@gmx.de; jgg@ziepe.ca
> > Cc: arnd@arndb.de; gregkh@linuxfoundation.org; linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org;
> > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; jeffrin@rajagiritech.edu.in; alex@guzman.io
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Revert "tpm: fix invalid locking in NONBLOCKING mode"
> > 
> > 
> > [EXTERNAL EMAIL]

What is this?

> > On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 12:38 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 19:23 +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 13:32 -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > > > > This reverts commit d23d12484307b40eea549b8a858f5fffad913897.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This commit has caused regressions for the XPS 9560 containing
> > > > > > a Nuvoton TPM.
> > > > >
> > > > > Presumably this is using the tis driver?
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > > > As mentioned by the reporter all TPM2 commands are failing with:
> > > > > >   ERROR:tcti:src/tss2-tcti/tcti-
> > > > > > device.c:290:tcti_device_receive()
> > > > > >   Failed to read response from fd 3, got errno 1: Operation not
> > > > > > permitted
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reporter bisected this issue back to this commit which was
> > > > > > backported to stable as commit 4d6ebc4.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the problem is request_locality ... for some inexplicable
> > > > > reason a failure there returns -1, which is EPERM to user space.
> > > > >
> > > > > That seems to be a bug in the async code since everything else
> > > > > gives a ESPIPE error if tpm_try_get_ops fails ... at least no-one
> > > > > assumes it gives back a sensible return code.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I think is happening is that with the patch the TPM goes
> > > > > through a quick sequence of request, relinquish, request,
> > > > > relinquish and it's the third request which is failing (likely
> > > > > timing out).  Without the patch, the patch there's only one
> > > > > request,relinquish cycle because the ops are held while the async
> > > > > work is executed.  I have a vague recollection that there is a
> > > > > problem with too many locality request in quick succession, but
> > > > > I'll defer to Jason, who I think understands the intricacies of
> > > > > localities better than I do.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, I don't pretend to understand the nuances of this particular
> > > > code, but I was hoping that the request to revert got some attention
> > > > since Alex's kernel Bugzilla and message a few months ago to linux
> > > > integrity weren't.
> > > >
> > > > > If that's the problem, the solution looks simple enough: just move
> > > > > the ops get down because the priv state is already protected by the
> > > > > buffer mutex
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, if that works for Alex's situation it certainly sounds like a
> > > > better solution than reverting this patch as this patch actually does
> > > > fix a problem reported by Jeffrin originally.
> > > >
> > > > Could you propose a specific patch that Alex and Jeffrin can perhaps
> > > > both try?
> > >
> > > Um, what's wrong with the one I originally attached and which you quote
> > > below?  It's only compile tested, but I think it will work, if the
> > > theory is correct.
> > 
> > Please send a legit patch, thanks.
> > 
> > /Jarkko
> 
> Jarkko,
> 
> After the confirmation from Alex that this patch attached to the end of the thread
> worked, James did send a proper patch that can be accessed here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20200527155800.ya43xm2ltuwduwjg@cantor/T/#t
> 
> Thanks,

Hi thanks a lot! I did read the full discussions and agree with the
conclusions as I get a patch in proper form.

Please ping next time a bit earlier. It's not that I don't want to deal
with the issues quickly as possible. It's probably just that I've forgot
something or missed.

/Jarkko