diff mbox series

[v10,2/8] tpm: tpm_tis: Fix expected bit handling and send all bytes in one shot without last byte in exception

Message ID 20200604134713.157951-3-amirmizi6@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Add tpm i2c ptp driver | expand

Commit Message

Amir Mizinski June 4, 2020, 1:47 p.m. UTC 
From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>

Detected the following incorrect implementation of the send command:
polling on the TPM_STS.stsValid field followed by checking the
TPM_STS.expect field only once. Since TPM_STS.stsValid represents the
TPM_STS.expect validity, both fields should be polled at the same time.

This fix modifies the signature of wait_for_tpm_stat(), adding an
additional "mask_result" parameter to its call. wait_for_tpm_stat() is now
polling the TPM_STS with a mask and waits for the value in mask_result.
The fix adds the ability to check if certain TPM_STS bits have been
cleared.

This change is also aligned to verifying the CRC on I2C TPM. The CRC
verification should be done after the TPM_STS.expect field is cleared
(TPM received all expected command bytes and set the calculated CRC value
in the register).

In addition, the send command was changed to comply with
TCG_DesignPrinciples_TPM2p0Driver_vp24_pubrev.pdf as follows:
- send all command bytes in one loop
- remove special handling of the last byte

Suggested-by: Benoit Houyere <benoit.houyere@st.com>
Signed-off-by: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 66 ++++++++++++++---------------------------
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

Comments

Jarkko Sakkinen June 17, 2020, 1:01 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 04:47:07PM +0300, amirmizi6@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>
> 
> Detected the following incorrect implementation of the send command:
> polling on the TPM_STS.stsValid field followed by checking the
> TPM_STS.expect field only once. Since TPM_STS.stsValid represents the
> TPM_STS.expect validity, both fields should be polled at the same time.
> 
> This fix modifies the signature of wait_for_tpm_stat(), adding an
> additional "mask_result" parameter to its call. wait_for_tpm_stat() is now
> polling the TPM_STS with a mask and waits for the value in mask_result.
> The fix adds the ability to check if certain TPM_STS bits have been
> cleared.
> 
> This change is also aligned to verifying the CRC on I2C TPM. The CRC
> verification should be done after the TPM_STS.expect field is cleared
> (TPM received all expected command bytes and set the calculated CRC value
> in the register).
> 
> In addition, the send command was changed to comply with
> TCG_DesignPrinciples_TPM2p0Driver_vp24_pubrev.pdf as follows:
> - send all command bytes in one loop
> - remove special handling of the last byte
> 
> Suggested-by: Benoit Houyere <benoit.houyere@st.com>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>

Just wondering how did you come up with that name since you are not
masking anything with 'mask_result'?

/Jarkko
Jarkko Sakkinen June 17, 2020, 1:05 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 04:01:12AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 04:47:07PM +0300, amirmizi6@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Detected the following incorrect implementation of the send command:
> > polling on the TPM_STS.stsValid field followed by checking the
> > TPM_STS.expect field only once. Since TPM_STS.stsValid represents the
> > TPM_STS.expect validity, both fields should be polled at the same time.
> > 
> > This fix modifies the signature of wait_for_tpm_stat(), adding an
> > additional "mask_result" parameter to its call. wait_for_tpm_stat() is now
> > polling the TPM_STS with a mask and waits for the value in mask_result.
> > The fix adds the ability to check if certain TPM_STS bits have been
> > cleared.
> > 
> > This change is also aligned to verifying the CRC on I2C TPM. The CRC
> > verification should be done after the TPM_STS.expect field is cleared
> > (TPM received all expected command bytes and set the calculated CRC value
> > in the register).
> > 
> > In addition, the send command was changed to comply with
> > TCG_DesignPrinciples_TPM2p0Driver_vp24_pubrev.pdf as follows:
> > - send all command bytes in one loop
> > - remove special handling of the last byte
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Benoit Houyere <benoit.houyere@st.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Mizinski <amirmizi6@gmail.com>
> 
> Just wondering how did you come up with that name since you are not
> masking anything with 'mask_result'?

Maybe just rename it as 'stat'? That would make the whole thing a lot
less confusing looking I think.

/Jarkko
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
index 27c6ca0..6ea70ea 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
@@ -44,9 +44,9 @@  static bool wait_for_tpm_stat_cond(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
 	return false;
 }
 
-static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
-		unsigned long timeout, wait_queue_head_t *queue,
-		bool check_cancel)
+static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask, u8 mask_result,
+			     unsigned long timeout, wait_queue_head_t *queue,
+			     bool check_cancel)
 {
 	unsigned long stop;
 	long rc;
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@  static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
 
 	/* check current status */
 	status = chip->ops->status(chip);
-	if ((status & mask) == mask)
+	if ((status & mask) == mask_result)
 		return 0;
 
 	stop = jiffies + timeout;
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@  static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
 			usleep_range(TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MIN,
 				     TPM_TIMEOUT_USECS_MAX);
 			status = chip->ops->status(chip);
-			if ((status & mask) == mask)
+			if ((status & mask) == mask_result)
 				return 0;
 		} while (time_before(jiffies, stop));
 	}
@@ -281,10 +281,10 @@  static int recv_data(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
 	int size = 0, burstcnt, rc;
 
 	while (size < count) {
-		rc = wait_for_tpm_stat(chip,
-				 TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID,
-				 chip->timeout_c,
-				 &priv->read_queue, true);
+		rc = wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID,
+				       TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID,
+				       chip->timeout_c, &priv->read_queue,
+				       true);
 		if (rc < 0)
 			return rc;
 		burstcnt = get_burstcount(chip);
@@ -337,8 +337,8 @@  static int tpm_tis_recv(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count)
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID, chip->timeout_c,
-				&priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
+	if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID, TPM_STS_VALID,
+			      chip->timeout_c, &priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
 		size = -ETIME;
 		goto out;
 	}
@@ -364,61 +364,39 @@  static int tpm_tis_send_data(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
 	struct tpm_tis_data *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
 	int rc, status, burstcnt;
 	size_t count = 0;
-	bool itpm = priv->flags & TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND;
 
 	status = tpm_tis_status(chip);
 	if ((status & TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY) == 0) {
 		tpm_tis_ready(chip);
-		if (wait_for_tpm_stat
-		    (chip, TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY, chip->timeout_b,
-		     &priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
+		if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY,
+				      TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY, chip->timeout_b,
+				      &priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
 			rc = -ETIME;
 			goto out_err;
 		}
 	}
 
-	while (count < len - 1) {
+	while (count < len) {
 		burstcnt = get_burstcount(chip);
 		if (burstcnt < 0) {
 			dev_err(&chip->dev, "Unable to read burstcount\n");
 			rc = burstcnt;
 			goto out_err;
 		}
-		burstcnt = min_t(int, burstcnt, len - count - 1);
+		burstcnt = min_t(int, burstcnt, len - count);
 		rc = tpm_tis_write_bytes(priv, TPM_DATA_FIFO(priv->locality),
 					 burstcnt, buf + count);
 		if (rc < 0)
 			goto out_err;
 
 		count += burstcnt;
-
-		if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID, chip->timeout_c,
-					&priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
-			rc = -ETIME;
-			goto out_err;
-		}
-		status = tpm_tis_status(chip);
-		if (!itpm && (status & TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT) == 0) {
-			rc = -EIO;
-			goto out_err;
-		}
 	}
-
-	/* write last byte */
-	rc = tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_DATA_FIFO(priv->locality), buf[count]);
-	if (rc < 0)
-		goto out_err;
-
-	if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID, chip->timeout_c,
-				&priv->int_queue, false) < 0) {
+	if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_VALID | TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT,
+			      TPM_STS_VALID, chip->timeout_a, &priv->int_queue,
+			      false) < 0) {
 		rc = -ETIME;
 		goto out_err;
 	}
-	status = tpm_tis_status(chip);
-	if (!itpm && (status & TPM_STS_DATA_EXPECT) != 0) {
-		rc = -EIO;
-		goto out_err;
-	}
 
 	return 0;
 
@@ -470,9 +448,9 @@  static int tpm_tis_send_main(struct tpm_chip *chip, const u8 *buf, size_t len)
 		ordinal = be32_to_cpu(*((__be32 *) (buf + 6)));
 
 		dur = tpm_calc_ordinal_duration(chip, ordinal);
-		if (wait_for_tpm_stat
-		    (chip, TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID, dur,
-		     &priv->read_queue, false) < 0) {
+		if (wait_for_tpm_stat(chip, TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID,
+				      TPM_STS_DATA_AVAIL | TPM_STS_VALID, dur,
+				      &priv->read_queue, false) < 0) {
 			rc = -ETIME;
 			goto out_err;
 		}