On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:43:19PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2025 at 09:45:21PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 06:45:40PM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 07:21:30PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > > > With some Infineon chips the timeouts in tpm_tis_send_data (both B and > > > > C) can reach up to about 2250 ms. > > > > > > > > Extend the timeout duration to accommodate this. > > > > > > The problem here is the bump of timeout_c is going to interact poorly with > > > the Infineon errata workaround, as now we'll wait 4s instead of 200ms to > > > detect the stuck status change. > > > > > > (Also shouldn't timeout_c already end up as 750ms, as it's > > > max(TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT, TPM2_TIMEOUT_C), and TIS_SHORT_TIMEOUT is 750 vs > > > 200 > > > for TPM2_TIMEOUT_C? That doesn't seem to be borne out by your logs, nor my > > > results.) > > > > Just noticed that the commit did not end up having fixes etc. tags: > > > > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jarkko/linux-tpmdd.git/commit/?id=de9e33df7762abbfc2a1568291f2c3a3154c6a9d > > > > Should we forward to stable? > > It's a TPM bug rather than a kernel issue, so I don't think there's a valid > Fixes: for it, but it's certainly stable material in my mind.
In the more general sense of Fixes: indicating where the fix is applicable it would be any kernel that supports TPM2. Thanks Michal
