Re: Getting weird TPM error after rebasing my tree to security/next-general
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <hidden>
Date: 2019-01-23 15:36:46
Also in:
linux-integrity, lkml
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 07:26:42AM +1300, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:29 AM Jarkko Sakkinen [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
Fails on commit 170d13ca3a2fdaaa0283399247631b76b441cca2. Still works on preceding commit a959dc88f9c8900296ccf13e2f3e1cbc555a8917.This changes the IO access pattern in memcpy_to/fromio.. Presumably CRB HW doesn't like the new 4 byte move? Swap each one in crb to memcpy to confirm.. If the HW requires particular access patterns you can't use memcpy_to/fromioDid not have time to look at the commit at all but your deduction is correct. I know it without testing. Memory controller will feed 1's on unaligned read from IO memory, and as we can see from the TPM header, this change causes two of those:Funky. But how did it work before then? The new memcpy_fromio() is designed to have _predictable_ access patterns. Not necessarily the best, but at least consistent. Prevously, we used whatever random "memcpy()" implementation we happened to pick, which *could* be aligned (particularly "rep movsb" - absolutely horrible performance for MMIO, but by doing IO one byte at a time it was certainly aligned ;), but most of our x86 memcpy implementations don't actually try all that hard to align the source. And the manual version will actually copy things *backwards* for some cases. Is it just that this particular hardware always happened to trigger the ERMS case (ie "rep movsb")?
This is the particular snippet in question: memcpy_fromio(buf, priv->rsp, 6); expected = be32_to_cpup((__be32 *) &buf[2]); if (expected > count || expected < 6) return -EIO; memcpy_fromio(&buf[6], &priv->rsp[6], expected - 6); I guess it did in the first memcpy_fromio operation since it is less than a quad word, right? Not sure why the 2nd memcpy_fromio() operation has worked, though.
Anyway, Jason is correct that if a device has particular IO pattern
requirements, you shouldn't use "memcpy_fromio()" and friends, but
it's interesting how it apparently *happened* to work before.
LinusSure, I'll prepare a fix ASAP. /Jarkko