Re: [PATCH v3] tpm_tis: Add missing tpm_request/relinquish_locality calls
From: Lukasz Majczak
Date: Wed Feb 03 2021 - 08:44:49 EST
Hi Jarkko, Dirk,
Jarkko,
Thank you for your points - I will try to fix all you have mentioned.
I think it would be good to clarify a few things, before going with
the next version. Regarding use tpm_chip_start/stop() around
tpm2_probe() call - I have followed the similar way it is done in the
probe_itpm() function, where is also a call to tpm_tis_send_data()
guarded by request/release_locality(). I have tested it on the Samsung
Chromebook Pro (which reports TPM 1.2 / Cr50) and it was sufficient
(e.g. I didn't have to enable the clock) to get rid of a trace
mentioned in the commit message....but now writing these words I'm
starting to think that using tpm_chip_start/stop() could be safer from
a point of view of other TPMs... so if you suggest using
tpm_chip_start/stop() shall I also add it to the probe_itpm() (instead
of request/release_locality()) ?
Dirk,
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the issue you observe - I
wanted to address at first the one that is generating the trace
(please check the commit message) because it was leading to returning
an error in the tpm_tis_status() function causing TPM module not
initialized at all in the end - requesting locality before the call to
the tpm_tis_send_data() has helped in my case (my test environment). I
am aware of the second issue - "TPM interrupt not working, polling
instead", but as it is not as critical as the first one, I decided to
work on it later.
Thank you once again for all your input and sorry for a confusion with
sending patches.
Best regards,
Lukasz
śr., 3 lut 2021 o 12:56 Dirk Gouders <dirk@xxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
>
> Dirk Gouders <dirk@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Lukasz Majczak <lma@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> There are missing calls to tpm_request_locality before the calls to
> >> the tpm_get_timeouts() and tpm_tis_probe_irq_single() - both functions
> >> internally send commands to the tpm. As the current
> >> approach might work for tpm2, it fails for tpm1.x - in that case
> >> call to tpm_get_timeouts() or tpm_tis_probe_irq_single()
> >> without acquired locality fails and in turn causes tpm_tis_core_init()
> >> to fail, it can be observed in the log with the following warning
> >> trace:
> >>
> >> [ 4.324298] TPM returned invalid status
> >> [ 4.324806] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1 at drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c:275 tpm_tis_status+0x86/0x8f
> >> [ 4.325888] Modules linked in:
> >> [ 4.326287] CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W 5.11.0-rc6-next-20210201-00003-g214461adb2e8 #43
> >> [ 4.327406] Hardware name: Google Caroline/Caroline, BIOS Google_Caroline.7820.430.0 07/20/2018
> >> [ 4.327918] RIP: 0010:tpm_tis_status+0x86/0x8f
> >> [ 4.328323] Code: 28 00 00 00 48 3b 45 f0 75 24 89 d8 48 83 c4 10 5b 5d c3 c6 05 58 d9 28 01 01 31 db 48 c7 c7 73 52 98 9c 31 c0 e8 c2 17 b0 ff <0f> 0b eb cd e8 cf 4f 55 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 55 48 89 e56
> >> [ 4.330592] RSP: 0000:ffff88810092f7a0 EFLAGS: 00010246
> >> [ 4.331223] RAX: 691ee151166db100 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 0000000000000001
> >> [ 4.331860] RDX: 0000000000000006 RSI: ffffffff9c96d302 RDI: 00000000ffffffff
> >> [ 4.332272] RBP: ffff88810092f7b8 R08: dffffc0000000000 R09: fffffbfff39c96ce
> >> [ 4.332683] R10: fffffbfff39c96ce R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff8881053e2000
> >> [ 4.333109] R13: 0000000065000000 R14: ffff888105d71000 R15: ffff888105cd2628
> >> [ 4.333738] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88842f200000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> >> [ 4.334432] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> >> [ 4.334783] CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000000037828001 CR4: 00000000003706e0
> >> [ 4.335196] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> >> [ 4.335886] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> >> [ 4.336793] Call Trace:
> >> [ 4.337107] tpm_tis_send_data+0x3d/0x22f
> >> [ 4.337506] tpm_tis_send_main+0x30/0xf5
> >> [ 4.337746] tpm_transmit+0xbf/0x327
> >> [ 4.338042] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x261/0x36d
> >> [ 4.338615] tpm_transmit_cmd+0x2c/0x93
> >> [ 4.339109] tpm1_getcap+0x232/0x285
> >> [ 4.339578] tpm1_get_timeouts+0x48/0x47d
> >> [ 4.339964] ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x71/0x257
> >> [ 4.340256] ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x71/0x257
> >> [ 4.340719] ? __raw_spin_lock_init+0x40/0x69
> >> [ 4.341208] tpm_tis_core_init+0x402/0x5ee
> >> [ 4.341629] tpm_tis_init+0x11d/0x1a2
> >> [ 4.341867] tpm_tis_pnp_init+0x91/0xb5
> >> [ 4.342101] ? tis_int_handler+0x15f/0x15f
> >> [ 4.342466] pnp_device_probe+0x79/0x9f
> >> [ 4.342941] really_probe+0x149/0x4a8
> >> [ 4.343412] driver_probe_device+0xd6/0x144
> >> [ 4.343968] device_driver_attach+0x42/0x5b
> >> [ 4.344382] __driver_attach+0xca/0x139
> >> [ 4.344617] ? driver_attach+0x1f/0x1f
> >> [ 4.344860] bus_for_each_dev+0x85/0xb7
> >> [ 4.345096] bus_add_driver+0x12b/0x228
> >> [ 4.345330] driver_register+0x64/0xed
> >> [ 4.345560] init_tis+0xa5/0xeb
> >> [ 4.345784] ? lock_is_held_type+0x100/0x141
> >> [ 4.346044] ? tpm_init+0x106/0x106
> >> [ 4.346259] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x41/0x7e
> >> [ 4.346542] ? tpm_init+0x106/0x106
> >> [ 4.346678] battery: ACPI: Battery Slot [BAT0] (battery present)
> >> [ 4.346754] do_one_initcall+0x1b9/0x43d
> >> [ 4.346776] ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
> >> [ 4.347659] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x8e/0x12e
> >> [ 4.347937] ? lock_is_held_type+0x100/0x141
> >> [ 4.348196] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x41/0x7e
> >> [ 4.348477] do_initcall_level+0x99/0xa9
> >> [ 4.348717] ? kernel_init+0xe/0x10a
> >> [ 4.348954] do_initcalls+0x4e/0x79
> >> [ 4.349170] kernel_init_freeable+0x15a/0x1ae
> >> [ 4.349434] ? rest_init+0x1d6/0x1d6
> >> [ 4.349655] kernel_init+0xe/0x10a
> >> [ 4.349882] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> >> [ 4.350103] irq event stamp: 700039
> >> [ 4.350318] hardirqs last enabled at (700047): [<ffffffff9b735265>] console_unlock+0x4be/0x538
> >> [ 4.350836] hardirqs last disabled at (700056): [<ffffffff9b734e84>] console_unlock+0xdd/0x538
> >> [ 4.351331] softirqs last enabled at (699522): [<ffffffff9c4004ec>] __do_softirq+0x4ec/0x539
> >> [ 4.351835] softirqs last disabled at (699517): [<ffffffff9c200f62>] asm_call_irq_on_stack+0x12/0x20
> >>
> >> Following the trace one can also notice a comment in the tpm_tis_status():
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * If this trips, the chances are the read is
> >> * returning 0xff because the locality hasn't been
> >> * acquired. Usually because tpm_try_get_ops() hasn't
> >> * been called before doing a TPM operation.
> >> */
> >> In this case we don't have to call tpm_try_get_ops()
> >> as both calls (tpm_get_timeouts() and tpm_tis_probe_irq_single()) are
> >> in the tpm_tis_core_init function and don't require any locking or clock
> >> enablement. Similar usage is in the probe_itpm() function also called
> >> inside tpm_tis_core_init().
> >> Tested on Samsung Chromebook Pro (Caroline).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majczak <lma@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> Hi Jarkko
> >>
> >> I have checked the linux-next with James patches, also followed Dirk
> >> suggestion applying remaining ones, although without any luck -
> >> a warning trace was still present. As Guneter mentioned earlier, this
> >> patch[1] doesn't address a lack of acquired locality in the
> >> tpm_get_timeouts() and does it only for tpm_tis_probe_irq_single() but
> >> also without a call to tpm_relinquish_locality().
> >>
> >> Here are my logs from the clean linux-next master branch [2]
> >> (with two James' patches present) and with my
> >> patch applied[3]
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Lukasz
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20201001180925.13808-5-James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >> [2] https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/f588c0684a6cc7d983bb9c4eb4bda586
> >> [3] https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/88ede933bc7d28d806e3532850a04054
> >>
> >> v2 -> v3:
> >> - Added braces around if part of if/else statements
> >> - Rebased to linux-next
> >> - Updated commit message
> >>
> >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c | 4 ++--
> >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 2 ++
> >> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> >> 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> >> index ddaeceb7e109..5351963a4b19 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
> >> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ struct class *tpm_class;
> >> struct class *tpmrm_class;
> >> dev_t tpm_devt;
> >>
> >> -static int tpm_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >> +int tpm_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >> {
> >> int rc;
> >> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static int tpm_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static void tpm_relinquish_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >> +void tpm_relinquish_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >> {
> >> int rc;
> >>
> >
> > Here, it seems
> >
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_request_locality);
> >
> > and
> >
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_relinquish_locality);
> >
> > are needed. Otherwise building tpm* modules fails:
> >
> > ERROR: modpost: "tpm_request_locality" [drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: modpost: "tpm_relinquish_locality" [drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.ko] undefined!
> > make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.modpost:132: Module.symvers] Error 1
> > make[1]: *** Deleting file 'Module.symvers'
> > make: *** [Makefile:1405: modules] Error 2
> >
> > Otherwise, testing this patch results in no more warning
> >
> > TPM returned invalid status: 0xff
> >
> > and also no more warnings:
> >
> > tpm tpm0: tpm_try_transmit: send(): error -5
> > tpm tpm0: [Firmware Bug]: TPM interrupt not working, polling instead
> >
> > Dirk
> >
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> >> index 1621ce818705..2a9001d329f2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> >> @@ -241,10 +241,17 @@ int tpm_get_timeouts(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >> if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_HAVE_TIMEOUTS)
> >> return 0;
> >>
> >> - if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
> >> + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) {
> >> return tpm2_get_timeouts(chip);
> >> - else
> >> - return tpm1_get_timeouts(chip);
> >> + } else {
> >> + ssize_t ret = tpm_request_locality(chip);
> >> +
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + ret = tpm1_get_timeouts(chip);
> >> + tpm_relinquish_locality(chip);
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_get_timeouts);
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> >> index 947d1db0a5cc..8c13008437dd 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> >> @@ -193,6 +193,8 @@ static inline void tpm_msleep(unsigned int delay_msec)
> >>
> >> int tpm_chip_start(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> >> void tpm_chip_stop(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> >> +int tpm_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> >> +void tpm_relinquish_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> >> struct tpm_chip *tpm_find_get_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> >> __must_check int tpm_try_get_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> >> void tpm_put_ops(struct tpm_chip *chip);
> >> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> >> index 431919d5f48a..d4f381d6356e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> >> @@ -708,11 +708,19 @@ static int tpm_tis_gen_interrupt(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> >> u32 cap2;
> >> cap_t cap;
> >>
> >> - if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
> >> + if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) {
> >> return tpm2_get_tpm_pt(chip, 0x100, &cap2, desc);
> >> - else
> >> - return tpm1_getcap(chip, TPM_CAP_PROP_TIS_TIMEOUT, &cap, desc,
> >> + } else {
> >> + ssize_t ret = tpm_request_locality(chip);
> >> +
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + ret = tpm1_getcap(chip, TPM_CAP_PROP_TIS_TIMEOUT, &cap, desc,
> >> 0);
> >> + tpm_relinquish_locality(chip);
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> }
> >>
> >> /* Register the IRQ and issue a command that will cause an interrupt. If an
>
> My apologies for just more noise from here.
>
> But I think it could be important that I withdraw my above statement
> concerning positive test results on my hardware.
>
> I was now trying to understand Lukasz' fix and started wondering how
> changes in the case of !(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) could affect
> my environment: tpm_tis STM0125:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x0, rev-id 78).
>
> So, I became very nervous and re-did several tests and it
> (understandably) turned out that Lukasz' patch does not affect my machine
> at all -- nearly: the only effect I noticed is that tpm_tis doesn't get
> loaded automatically with his patch applied. I have to load it manually
> but then get the familiar log messages.
>
> But the tests I based my wrong statement on were done with static
> tpm_tis, because of symbols not having been exported (V3).
> I now noticed that tpm_tis behaves different depending on if it is built
> static or as a module (latest tests done with
> 5.11.0-rc6-next-20210202-x86_64+).
>
> In the static case, all I see in the logs is:
>
> [ 2.673818] tpm_tis STM0125:00: 2.0 TPM (device-id 0x0, rev-id 78)
>
> Perhaps there are better ways to access and test TPM but I tested it
> using getrandom: no further messages in the kernel log were generated.
>
> If tpm_tis it is built as a module the behavior is the one with warnings
> and falling back to polling.
>
> Dirk