On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 10:02:33AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 07:43:07PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2025 at 09:52:58PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 06:08:31PM +0000, Orlov, Ivan wrote:
> > > > The current implementation of timeout detection works in the following
> > > > way:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Read completion status. If completed, return the data
> > > > 2. Sleep for some time (usleep_range)
> > > > 3. Check for timeout using current jiffies value. Return an error if
> > > > timed out
> > > > 4. Goto 1
> > > >
> > > > usleep_range doesn't guarantee it's always going to wake up strictly in
> > > > (min, max) range, so such a situation is possible:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Driver reads completion status. No completion yet
> > > > 2. Process sleeps indefinitely. In the meantime, TPM responds
> > > > 3. We check for timeout without checking for the completion again.
> > > > Result is lost.
> > > >
> > > > Such a situation also happens for the guest VMs: if vCPU goes to sleep
> > > > and doesn't get scheduled for some time, the guest TPM driver will
> > > > timeout instantly after waking up without checking for the completion
> > > > (which may already be in place).
> > > >
> > > > Perform the completion check once again after exiting the busy loop in
> > > > order to give the device the last chance to send us some data.
> > > >
> > > > Since now we check for completion in two places, extract this check into
> > > > a separate function.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ivan Orlov <ior...@amazon.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > V1 -> V2:
> > > > - Exclude the jiffies -> ktime change from the patch
> > > > - Instead of recording the time before checking for completion, check
> > > > for completion once again after leaving the loop
> > > >
> > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > index 8d7e4da6ed53..6960ee2798e1 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > > @@ -82,6 +82,13 @@ static bool tpm_chip_req_canceled(struct tpm_chip
> > > > *chip, u8 status)
> > > > return chip->ops->req_canceled(chip, status);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static bool tpm_transmit_completed(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u8 status_masked = tpm_chip_status(chip) &
> > > > chip->ops->req_complete_mask;
> > > > +
> > > > + return status_masked == chip->ops->req_complete_val;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, void *buf,
> > > > size_t bufsiz)
> > > > {
> > > > struct tpm_header *header = buf;
> > > > @@ -129,8 +136,7 @@ static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct tpm_chip
> > > > *chip, void *buf, size_t bufsiz)
> > > > stop = jiffies + tpm_calc_ordinal_duration(chip, ordinal);
> > > > do {
> > > > u8 status = tpm_chip_status(chip);
> > > > - if ((status & chip->ops->req_complete_mask) ==
> > > > - chip->ops->req_complete_val)
> > > > + if (tpm_transmit_completed(chip))
> > > > goto out_recv;
> > >
> > > The only thing I'd point out here is we end up doing a double status read
> > > one after the other (once here, once in tpm_transmit_completed), and I'm
> > > pretty sure I've seen instances where that caused a problem.
> >
> > It would be easy to to prevent at least double reads after completion
> > e.g., in tpm_chip_status():
>
> Or just take the simple approach and make the check after the while loop:
>
> if ((tpm_chip_status(chip) & chip->ops->req_complete_mask) ==
> chip->ops->req_complete_val)
> goto out_recv;
>
> There might be potential for a longer term cleanup using chip->status to
> cache things, but I'm little concerned that's going to open paths where we
> might not correctly update it, so I think it should be a separate piece.
>
> (I'm motivated by the fact we've started to see the "Operation Canceled"
> error and I'd like us to close on the best way to fix it. :) )
This would work for me too!
Please send a new version if you feel like it but next week I won't be
reviewing that as I'm on holiday.
>
> J.
> --
> I am afraid of the dark.
BR, Jarkko
