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;
Message-ID: <db6ccb14819c4c7a32e886eade144884fafc55fe.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] tpm_tis: Disable interrupts if interrupt storm
 detected
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 07 Dec 2020 11:58:44 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20201207192803.GH5487@ziepe.ca>
References: <20201205014340.148235-1-jsnitsel@redhat.com>
         <20201205014340.148235-4-jsnitsel@redhat.com>
         <87tusy7n3b.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20201207192803.GH5487@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 15:28 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 08:26:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Just as a side note. I was looking at tpm_tis_probe_irq_single()
> > and that function is leaking the interrupt request if any of the
> > checks afterwards fails, except for the final interrupt probe check
> > which does a cleanup. That means on fail before that the interrupt
> > handler stays requested up to the point where the module is
> > removed. If that's a shared interrupt and some other device is
> > active on the same line, then each interrupt from that device will
> > call into the TPM code. Something like the below is needed.
> > 
> > Also the X86 autoprobe mechanism is interesting:
> > 
> > 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86))
> > 		for (i = 3; i <= 15; i++)
> > 			if (!tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, 0,
> > i))
> > 				return;
> > 
> > The third argument is 'flags' which is handed to request_irq(). So
> > that won't ever be able to probe a shared interrupt. But if an
> > interrupt number > 0 is handed to tpm_tis_core_init() the interrupt
> > is requested with IRQF_SHARED. Same issue when the chip has an
> > interrupt number in the register. It's also requested exclusive
> > which is pretty likely to fail on ancient x86 machines.
> 
> It is very likely none of this works any more, it has been repeatedly
> reworked over the years and just left behind out of fear someone
> needs it. I've thought it should be deleted for a while now.
> 
> I suppose the original logic was to try and probe without SHARED
> because a probe would need exclusive access to the interrupt to tell
> if the TPM was actually the source, not some other device.
> 
> It is all very old and very out of step with current thinking, IMHO.
> I skeptical that TPM interrupts were ever valuable enough to deserve
> this in the first place.

For what it's worth, I agree.  Trying to probe all 15 ISA interrupts is
last millennium thinking we should completely avoid.  If it's not
described in ACPI then you don't get an interrupt full stop.

James