RE: [PATCH] tpm: don't destroy chip device prematurely
From: Winkler, Tomas
Date: Wed Oct 05 2016 - 20:43:56 EST
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:09:17PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > It could, but that patch was not merged yet, and I believe even if the
> > issue is exposed only with runtime_pm currently, we have a bug in
> > design even w/o runtime pm.
> Please don't make changes without any justification :(
> > > These are all fine, obviously. Todays kernel retains those values
> > > across device_del and we set those values in tpmm_chip_alloc/etc. So
> > > correct values are present as long as the chip memory exists. tpm
> > > continues to hold a kref on the chip so the memory will be around.
> > I'm not saying they are not, but calling deep into the tpm stack and
> > even to the parent device with unutilized device is not sane.
> You keep asserting that, but it just isn't true at all.
Okay, let's rephrase, that calling device_del before tpm_transmit is not sane when using runtime_pm.
> For a long time the tpm subsystem didn't even have a 'struct device'. That is
> something Jarkko and I added.
> The *ONLY* thing it does is act as the anchor for user space - eg it holds the
> sysfs, contains the 'dev' file for the cdev, etc, etc. This was an important clean
> Internally to the tpm core, and the drivers, the chip->dev does
> *NOTHING* except hold the few variables you pointed out. That is it.
> We could go back to the old code, without the 'dev' and things could still work
You can write the code in one big loop in assembly and it would work as well, this is not the point.
> This is why your assertion the struct device needs to be registered makes no
But you did change the code to get more benefits but this also comes with more dependencies and new rules.
I also can go the simple way and go_idle, cmd_ready callbacks and nothing will breaks, but we wanted all those goodies that runtime_pm has (autosuspend and sysfs), but the feature has longer roots.
> If the runtime_pm patches change this, then we have a very serious problem.
> Removing this assumption is much harder than a one line patch moving
I'm just saying that the runtime patches only exposed issue in the design.
> I actually have no idea how you'd do it, since we call all sorts of tpm ops
> between device_init and device_add - again device_del is the least of the
> problems if runtime pm insists the chip->dev be registered when running
This has to be revisited as well.
> So, I again, strongly advise you to give up on this idea, it is too hard for TPM,
> and does not seem technically needed at this time. Even it it does seem to
> make some kind of intuitive sense.
I'm the last one who want to do extra jobs, we need to make our hw working asap, but we need to do it right.
> > > Is there some other PM path where dev->parent becomes invovled?
> > Of course, the power management utilize the device hierarch, it
> > assumes there is power dependencies between parents and child devices,
> > such as bus controllers and the devices on that bus.
> Sure, but that relationship only maters if something does a PM call on the
> chip->dev, and AFAIK, nothing does that.
> Do you know differently?
You've pasted that code in in the previous mail, parent is involved on device remove.
> You pointed at something that isn't even run and said it is the source of the
> problem.. You really need to set up here and explain exactly what is
Sorry, lost you here.
> > > Are you just guessing this solves a problem, or were you able to
> > > reproduce Jarkko's report?
> > No, guesses are not my style :), this solves the issue, as you see
> > this was also validated by Jarrko on his setup.
> In the thread you pointed to Jarkko said he could not reproduce the original
> issue. Jarkko can you clarify??
No, he rolled back the runtime_pm patch and the issue disappeared and that's how we found the root cause.
> > > Even if that pm_runtime_put is happening, why doesn't the
> > >
> > > + pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev.parent);
> > >
> > > The runtime_pm patch adds to tpm_transmit take care of bringing the
> > > device back?
> > Unfortunately not because, because it gets out of sync and what is
> > actually happening is that idle callback is called and device is put
> > to idle between send and receive.
> What? As far as I understand this PM stuff, I would call that a very serious bug.
Maybe, but then you have to find what a bug, currently it looks like wrong usage of the device.
> If a PM transition during transmit_cmd causes the TPM to abort/fail command
> execution then it *MUST* be prevented. Period.
Or, we can call device_del after tpm2_shutdown.
> pm_runtime_get_sync appears to be the correct thing to get the guarentee, so
> I'm very confused by your statement.
> > Now we can find a trick to fix this, but this would be rather w/o
> > while we know what the real issue is.
> don't understand this.. Are you saying that going into idle during tpm_transmit
> is not a bug?
> Sounds like there is some sort of race condition with the pm stuff that needs
> I still don't see what your actual bug is, other than what I already knew -
> somehow PM causes transmit_cmd to fail.
I will send you the actual trace, anyhow I've respin the original version with go_idle and cmd_ready handlers, this is contra productive, the time is just not right.