Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] tpm, tpm: Implement usage counter for locality

From: Jarkko Sakkinen
Date: Sun Oct 23 2022 - 00:41:12 EST

Next message: Jarkko Sakkinen: "Re: [PATCH v4] KEYS: encrypted: fix key instantiation with user-provided data"
Previous message: Jarkko Sakkinen: "Re: [PATCH v8 11/11] tpm, tpm_tis: Enable interrupt test"
In reply to: Jarkko Sakkinen: "Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] tpm, tpm: Implement usage counter for locality"
Next in thread: Lino Sanfilippo: "[PATCH v8 10/11] tpm, tpm_tis: Claim locality in interrupt handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 01:57:29AM +0200, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> From: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Implement a usage counter for the (default) locality used by the TPM TIS
> driver:
> Request the locality from the TPM if it has not been claimed yet, otherwise
> only increment the counter. Also release the locality if the counter is 0
> otherwise only decrement the counter. Ensure thread-safety by protecting
> the counter with a mutex.
>
> This allows to request and release the locality from a thread and the
> interrupt handler at the same time without the danger to interfere with
> each other.
>
> By doing this refactor the names of the amended functions to use the proper
> prefix.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h | 2 +
> 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index 4336f7ea8c2b..79dfab65976f 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -165,16 +165,27 @@ static bool check_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
> return false;
> }
>
> -static int release_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
> +static int tpm_tis_release_locality_locked(struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int l)

Nit: usually you would actually use "unlocked" here, not locked.

Probably best name would be __tpm_tis_release_locality().

> +{
> + tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_ACCESS(l), TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int tpm_tis_release_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
> {
> struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>
> - tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_ACCESS(l), TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY);
> + mutex_lock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
> + priv->locality_count--;
> + if (priv->locality_count == 0)
> + tpm_tis_release_locality_locked(priv, l);
> + mutex_unlock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
>
> return 0;
> }

Since the function pointer has the word "relinquish" and not "release",
perhaps these should also use that word for consistency.

>
> -static int request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
> +static int tpm_tis_request_locality_locked(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
> {
> struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> unsigned long stop, timeout;
> @@ -215,6 +226,20 @@ static int request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
> return -1;
> }
>
> +static int tpm_tis_request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
> +{
> + struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
> + if (priv->locality_count == 0)
> + ret = tpm_tis_request_locality_locked(chip, l);
> + if (!ret)
> + priv->locality_count++;
> + mutex_unlock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static u8 tpm_tis_status(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> {
> struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
> @@ -682,7 +707,7 @@ static int probe_itpm(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> if (vendor != TPM_VID_INTEL)
> return 0;
>
> - if (request_locality(chip, 0) != 0)
> + if (tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0) != 0)
> return -EBUSY;
>
> rc = tpm_tis_send_data(chip, cmd_getticks, len);
> @@ -703,7 +728,7 @@ static int probe_itpm(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>
> out:
> tpm_tis_ready(chip);
> - release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
>
> return rc;
> }
> @@ -762,7 +787,7 @@ static int tpm_tis_gen_interrupt(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> cap_t cap;
> int ret;
>
> - ret = request_locality(chip, 0);
> + ret = tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -771,7 +796,7 @@ static int tpm_tis_gen_interrupt(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> else
> ret = tpm1_getcap(chip, TPM_CAP_PROP_TIS_TIMEOUT, &cap, desc, 0);
>
> - release_locality(chip, 0);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, 0);
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -796,33 +821,33 @@ static int tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 intmask,
> }
> priv->irq = irq;
>
> - rc = request_locality(chip, 0);
> + rc = tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> if (rc < 0)
> return rc;
>
> rc = tpm_tis_read8(priv, TPM_INT_VECTOR(priv->locality),
> &original_int_vec);
> if (rc < 0) {
> - release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> return rc;
> }
>
> rc = tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_INT_VECTOR(priv->locality), irq);
> if (rc < 0) {
> - release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> return rc;
> }
>
> rc = tpm_tis_read32(priv, TPM_INT_STATUS(priv->locality), &int_status);
> if (rc < 0) {
> - release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> return rc;
> }
>
> /* Clear all existing */
> rc = tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_STATUS(priv->locality), int_status);
> if (rc < 0) {
> - release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> return rc;
> }
>
> @@ -830,11 +855,11 @@ static int tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 intmask,
> rc = tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality),
> intmask | TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE);
> if (rc < 0) {
> - release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> return rc;
> }
>
> - release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, priv->locality);
> clear_bit(TPM_TIS_IRQ_TESTED, &priv->flags);
>
> /* Generate an interrupt by having the core call through to
> @@ -970,8 +995,8 @@ static const struct tpm_class_ops tpm_tis = {
> .req_complete_mask = TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID,
> .req_complete_val = TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID,
> .req_canceled = tpm_tis_req_canceled,
> - .request_locality = request_locality,
> - .relinquish_locality = release_locality,
> + .request_locality = tpm_tis_request_locality,
> + .relinquish_locality = tpm_tis_release_locality,
> .clk_enable = tpm_tis_clkrun_enable,
> };
>
> @@ -1005,6 +1030,8 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
> priv->timeout_min = TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN;
> priv->timeout_max = TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX;
> priv->phy_ops = phy_ops;
> + priv->locality_count = 0;
> + mutex_init(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
>
> dev_set_drvdata(&chip->dev, priv);
>
> @@ -1083,14 +1110,14 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
>
> intmask &= ~TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE;
>
> - rc = request_locality(chip, 0);
> + rc = tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> if (rc < 0) {
> rc = -ENODEV;
> goto out_err;
> }
>
> tpm_tis_write32(priv, TPM_INT_ENABLE(priv->locality), intmask);
> - release_locality(chip, 0);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, 0);
>
> rc = tpm_chip_start(chip);
> if (rc)
> @@ -1124,13 +1151,13 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
> * proper timeouts for the driver.
> */
>
> - rc = request_locality(chip, 0);
> + rc = tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> if (rc < 0)
> goto out_err;
>
> rc = tpm_get_timeouts(chip);
>
> - release_locality(chip, 0);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, 0);
>
> if (rc) {
> dev_err(dev, "Could not get TPM timeouts and durations\n");
> @@ -1150,11 +1177,11 @@ int tpm_tis_core_init(struct device *dev, struct tpm_tis_data *priv, int irq,
> dev_err(&chip->dev, FW_BUG
> "TPM interrupt not working, polling instead\n");
>
> - rc = request_locality(chip, 0);
> + rc = tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> if (rc < 0)
> goto out_err;
> disable_interrupts(chip);
> - release_locality(chip, 0);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, 0);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1221,13 +1248,13 @@ int tpm_tis_resume(struct device *dev)
> * an error code but for unknown reason it isn't handled.
> */
> if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)) {
> - ret = request_locality(chip, 0);
> + ret = tpm_tis_request_locality(chip, 0);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> tpm1_do_selftest(chip);
>
> - release_locality(chip, 0);
> + tpm_tis_release_locality(chip, 0);
> }
>
> return 0;
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
> index 2deef11c88db..13bdcf38e56f 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.h
> @@ -91,6 +91,8 @@ enum tpm_tis_flags {
>
> struct tpm_tis_data {
> u16 manufacturer_id;
> + struct mutex locality_count_mutex;

BTW, why mutex and not spinlock?

Hmm.. also I think you might have given feedback already on this
but could the lock cover the whole struct instead of a counter?
I tried to dig lore for earlier response but could not find. I'm
sorry if I'm asking the same question again.

You could probably use rcu for that.

> + unsigned int locality_count;
> int locality;
> int irq;
> unsigned int int_mask;
> --
> 2.36.1
>

BR, Jarkko

Next message: Jarkko Sakkinen: "Re: [PATCH v4] KEYS: encrypted: fix key instantiation with user-provided data"
Previous message: Jarkko Sakkinen: "Re: [PATCH v8 11/11] tpm, tpm_tis: Enable interrupt test"
In reply to: Jarkko Sakkinen: "Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] tpm, tpm: Implement usage counter for locality"
Next in thread: Lino Sanfilippo: "[PATCH v8 10/11] tpm, tpm_tis: Claim locality in interrupt handler"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]