Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] tpm_tis: Disable interrupts if interrupt storm detected

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:58:44AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 15:28 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 08:26:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Just as a side note. I was looking at tpm_tis_probe_irq_single()
> > > and that function is leaking the interrupt request if any of the
> > > checks afterwards fails, except for the final interrupt probe check
> > > which does a cleanup. That means on fail before that the interrupt
> > > handler stays requested up to the point where the module is
> > > removed. If that's a shared interrupt and some other device is
> > > active on the same line, then each interrupt from that device will
> > > call into the TPM code. Something like the below is needed.
> > > 
> > > Also the X86 autoprobe mechanism is interesting:
> > > 
> > > 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86))
> > > 		for (i = 3; i <= 15; i++)
> > > 			if (!tpm_tis_probe_irq_single(chip, intmask, 0,
> > > i))
> > > 				return;
> > > 
> > > The third argument is 'flags' which is handed to request_irq(). So
> > > that won't ever be able to probe a shared interrupt. But if an
> > > interrupt number > 0 is handed to tpm_tis_core_init() the interrupt
> > > is requested with IRQF_SHARED. Same issue when the chip has an
> > > interrupt number in the register. It's also requested exclusive
> > > which is pretty likely to fail on ancient x86 machines.
> > 
> > It is very likely none of this works any more, it has been repeatedly
> > reworked over the years and just left behind out of fear someone
> > needs it. I've thought it should be deleted for a while now.
> > 
> > I suppose the original logic was to try and probe without SHARED
> > because a probe would need exclusive access to the interrupt to tell
> > if the TPM was actually the source, not some other device.
> > 
> > It is all very old and very out of step with current thinking, IMHO.
> > I skeptical that TPM interrupts were ever valuable enough to deserve
> > this in the first place.
> 
> For what it's worth, I agree.  Trying to probe all 15 ISA interrupts is
> last millennium thinking we should completely avoid.  If it's not
> described in ACPI then you don't get an interrupt full stop.
> 
> James

Maybe you could add this as part of your patches?

/Jarkko