On Fri Aug 18, 2023 at 10:38 PM UTC, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
On 8/18/2023 5:07 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Fri Aug 18, 2023 at 6:15 PM UTC, Mario Limonciello wrote:
The vendor check introduced by commit 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs") doesn't work properly on Intel fTPM. The TPM doesn't reply at bootup and returns back the command code.
Is this reproducible with any production hardware? You are stating it as it was reproducible categorically with any Intel fTPM.
Yes, it's affecting production hardware too. Someone came to the kernel bugzilla and reported a regression on 6.4.11 on a Lenovo Intel laptop as well.
Now the description says that cateogrically all Intel fTPM's fail.
I asked for the laptop model in the bugzilla bug, which should be put to the commit description later on (hopefully with a snippet of klog transcript). This commit cannot be applied as it is at the moment, even if it turned out to be a legit fix.
As this isn't crucial for anything but AMD fTPM and AMD fTPM works, throw away the error code to let Intel fTPM continue to work.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 554b841d4703 ("tpm: Disable RNG for all AMD fTPMs")
It does make sense not to exercise this outside of AMD CPus but since there is no production hardware failing, it cannot be categorized as a bug fix.
See above (and also kernel bugzilla).
Reported-by: Todd Brandt todd.e.brandt@intel.com Closes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217804 Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello mario.limonciello@amd.com
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c index 9eb1a18590123..b0e9931fe436c 100644 --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c @@ -472,8 +472,7 @@ static int crb_check_flags(struct tpm_chip *chip) if (ret) return ret;
- ret = tpm2_get_tpm_pt(chip, TPM2_PT_MANUFACTURER, &val, NULL);
- if (ret)
- if (tpm2_get_tpm_pt(chip, TPM2_PT_MANUFACTURER, &val, NULL)) goto release;
It would be better not to exercise a potentially failing code path at all. This initiates full transaction with the TPM.
So why does a full transaction not work in this case?
It makes absolutely zero sense to send a message to a TPM just to know that you are on AMD CPU, right?
E.g. you could check if boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD right in the beginning of this function.
BR, Jarkko