Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:12:31 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Jan Dabros <jsd@semihalf.com>,
        regressions@lists.linux.dev, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Johannes Altmanninger <aclopte@gmail.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: Allow system suspend to continue when TPM
 suspend fails
Message-ID: <Y8UG77zvJeic7Cyc@kernel.org>
References: <Y7dPV5BK6jk1KvX+@zx2c4.com>
 <20230106030156.3258307-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230106030156.3258307-1-Jason@zx2c4.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 04:01:56AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> TPM 1 is sometimes broken across system suspends, due to races or
> locking issues or something else that haven't been diagnosed or fixed
> yet, most likely having to do with concurrent reads from the TPM's
> hardware random number generator driver. These issues prevent the system
> from actually suspending, with errors like:
> 
>   tpm tpm0: A TPM error (28) occurred continue selftest
>   ...
>   tpm tpm0: A TPM error (28) occurred attempting get random
>   ...
>   tpm tpm0: Error (28) sending savestate before suspend
>   tpm_tis 00:08: PM: __pnp_bus_suspend(): tpm_pm_suspend+0x0/0x80 returns 28
>   tpm_tis 00:08: PM: dpm_run_callback(): pnp_bus_suspend+0x0/0x10 returns 28
>   tpm_tis 00:08: PM: failed to suspend: error 28
>   PM: Some devices failed to suspend, or early wake event detected
> 
> This issue was partially fixed by 23393c646142 ("char: tpm: Protect
> tpm_pm_suspend with locks"), in a last minute 6.1 commit that Linus took
> directly because the TPM maintainers weren't available. However, it
> seems like this just addresses the most common cases of the bug, rather
> than addressing it entirely. So there are more things to fix still,
> apparently.
> 
> In lieu of actually fixing the underlying bug, just allow system suspend
> to continue, so that laptops still go to sleep fine. Later, this can be
> reverted when the real bug is fixed.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7cbe96cf-e0b5-ba63-d1b4-f63d2e826efa@suse.cz/
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.1+
> Reported-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
> ---
> This is basically untested and I haven't worked out if there are any
> awful implications of letting the system sleep when TPM suspend fails.
> Maybe some PCRs get cleared and that will make everything explode on
> resume? Maybe it doesn't matter? Somebody well versed in TPMology should
> probably [n]ack this approach.
> 
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> index d69905233aff..6df9067ef7f9 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> @@ -412,7 +412,10 @@ int tpm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev)
>  	}
>  
>  suspended:
> -	return rc;
> +	if (rc)
> +		pr_err("Unable to suspend tpm-%d (error %d), but continuing system suspend\n",
> +		       chip->dev_num, rc);
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_pm_suspend);
>  
> -- 
> 2.39.0
> 

Let me read all the threads through starting from the original report. I've
had emails piling up because of getting sick before holiday, and holiday
season after that.

This looks sane

Apologies for the lack of response.

BR, Jarkko