On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 02:18:29PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > module_ffa_driver(tpm_crb_ffa_driver);
Oops, I missed this statement. Sorry, my bad. > > > > > > 0000000000000a9c l .initcall6.init> ffa_init > > > > > > In this situation, the IMA subsystem fails to integrate with the TPM > > > device > > > because the TPM was not available at the time ima_init() was called. > > > As a result, you may see the following message in the kernel log: > > > > > > | ima: No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass! > > > > TPM initializes before IMA, so there should not be a problem. > > If you see my commit message it describes the situation why this happen. > when crb_acpi_driver_init() is called but before tpm_crb_ffa_init() is > called, the secure partition doesn't probe. so crb_acpi_driver_init() > would be failed wiith -EPROBE. What is "secure partition" and why it doesn't probe at the time of crb_acpi_driver_init()? > > In this situation, init_ima() which call ima_init() can be called first. > NOTE, init_ima() is deployed in late_initcall and > the "deferred_probe device" is tried again in > deferred_probe late initcall. > However, even the deferred_probe can be call later then init_ima(). > > 000000000000012c l .initcall7.init>-------0000000000000000 init_ima > 000000000000016c l .initcall7.init>-------0000000000000000 > deferred_probe_initcall7 > > That's why init_ima() is failed to init with TPM when It is deffered. > > Would you let me know why you said it's not a problem? What has deferred_probe_initcall has to do with this? Not actually asking just pointing out stuff that you should open up. > > -- > Sincerely, > Yeoreum Yun BR, Jarkko
