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;
Message-ID: <2f96d0e9-3659-fa20-53d7-73c883f77fda@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 16:26:12 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [Syzkaller & bisect] There is WARNING in tpm_chip_unregister in
 upstream patch "tpm: st33zp24: Mark ACPI and OF related data as maybe unused"
To:     Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>, jarkko@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, heng.su@intel.com,
        peterhuewe@gmx.de, dhowells@redhat.com, lkp@intel.com
References: <ZEjqhwHWBnxcaRV5@xpf.sh.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZEjqhwHWBnxcaRV5@xpf.sh.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 26/04/2023 11:10, Pengfei Xu wrote:
> Hi Jarkko and Krzysztof Kozlowski,
> 
> Greeting!
> 
> Platform: x86 platforms
> 
> There is WARNING in tpm_chip_unregister in upstream patch "tpm: st33zp24: Mark
> ACPI and OF related data as maybe unused":
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230424144130.1084795-1-jarkko@kernel.org/
> -> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230319141354.22907-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/
> 
> We tested Intel internal kernel and found that, the above patch caused below
> WARNING and then kernel BUG dmesg info. After reverted above commit on top
> of Intel internal kernel, this issue was gone.
> I checked that internal commit:"c3985d8b9c22 tpm: st33zp24: Mark ACPI and OF
> related data as maybe unused" was same as above link patch.
> This issue could be reproduced in 155s in VM.

I am trying to reproduce it with mentioned reproducer.

One problem is that commit c3985d8b9c22 (and that patch of mine) was
never in the linux-next. I checked last next releases, including
next-20230421 and there is no such change. It seems it was applied just
before merge window, so was not tested by anything before.

Best regards,
Krzysztof