Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F165E1E883E for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 17:12:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738343532; cv=none; b=fRLTpwNosBUGiVW8X2U32/CZs0eBBcptfUzGBqHwTJgpjbs4NMMff2YUqKLOZJ22xdMbpY1uFDssLooKfQ7g6KdJ2hxw1zaB6RngYrjPFPL5jy6apXf1928jn5HWp2uBlSCZ+HiPIw64zEqtlb7tsgdDWFH76B4dzw/i4IKDhdQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738343532; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s3wtHpO2eSWj2oi5/cWY5WGeUSyYy2LaEfiWAvkzqGI=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=FYeSKUT1SJY77WgL3UEx7m/DsayZwAljDnL2txzhxDREsw2YsBR/q5G+DPZ81VMlLorP1t70LXsVSY8Fy+sNQDgbExwIcGAhRk6u8GpwYreWHspwsQXOZNWSTSxrYS54u9KIesllJF/5mc0SBiG+GVpJJBcvaIWQLO4Qvjl1eGA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kUGbueRP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kUGbueRP" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1CB4C4CED1; Fri, 31 Jan 2025 17:12:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1738343531; bh=s3wtHpO2eSWj2oi5/cWY5WGeUSyYy2LaEfiWAvkzqGI=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=kUGbueRPlZfltM4rUWyOXvjiEY8Q7RyzSm4AhoEa9GTwBDdeG+3g5nvpqRpOBoylW BRQ/B0iErZzNAHFokRmVe49XQB52lw5OMYgCEN2IaB7Pc/4CpxOT7DhYoYBvfDGB3M wgd7/hIeM8J1DA5k+o71DLvBlWZcWD2q/FHptLXfP5uZsNVMHAGRjLfiZFHItM1VYS rXM2ifzZqUQPxuMfM8wZ2cgNDIzS+epWnJXh6I5rzbz/RW2W0nXn1hpXGafgBDjjAu kOPbg1DWvRR7s95AlkFzEoNp3aBeI3l8r1erxF+NBNqa+5IE2QYTT1rZsA1DwaNiWL P0HCGm6wLp4Mg== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 19:12:06 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: TPM operation times out (very rarely) From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" To: =?utf-8?q?Michal_Such=C3=A1nek?= Cc: "Jonathan McDowell" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.18.2 References: In-Reply-To: On Fri Jan 31, 2025 at 3:02 PM EET, Michal Such=C3=A1nek wrote: > It looks like the timeout_b is used exclusively as the ready timeout *), > with various sources of the value depending on chip type. > > Then increasing it should not cause any problem other than the kernel > waiting longer when the TPM chip is really stuck. > > * There is one instance of use of timeout_b for TPM_STS_VALID in > st33zp24_pm_resume. Possible for you to give a shot for patch and try it out for a while? I'm fine with 2x, or even 4x in this case. BR, Jarkko