Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Mar 2011 02:02:54 +0530 | Subject | Re: TPM chip prevents machine from suspending | From | Sisir Koppaka <> |
| |
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:27:05 +0530 > Sisir Koppaka <sisir.koppaka@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net> wrote: >> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:12:41 -0400 >> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:25:06 -0400 >> >> Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 03/28/2011 10:08 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: >> >> > > My wife's machine apparently has a TPM chip in it. Since I upgraded it >> >> > > to Fedora 14, it fails to suspend consistently. On the first attempt to >> >> > > suspend it, it works fine. Once it has woken back up however, it will >> >> > > not suspend again. Here's the dmesg log from such an attempt: >> >> > > >> >> > > [ 202.460967] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. >> >> > > [ 202.464818] PM: Preparing system for mem sleep >> >> > > [ 202.485968] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done. >> >> > > [ 202.497079] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done. >> >> > > [ 202.508067] PM: Entering mem sleep >> >> > > [ 202.508086] Suspending console(s) (use no_console_suspend to debug) >> >> > > [ 202.508451] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Synchronizing SCSI cache >> >> > > [ 202.508562] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache >> >> > > [ 202.508616] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Stopping disk >> >> > > [ 202.511956] parport_pc 00:0b: disabled >> >> > > [ 202.512127] serial 00:09: disabled >> >> > > [ 202.512134] serial 00:09: wake-up capability disabled by ACPI >> >> > > [ 202.536058] legacy_suspend(): pnp_bus_suspend+0x0/0x82 returns 38 >> >> > > [ 202.536061] PM: Device 00:02 failed to suspend: error 38 >> >> > > [ 202.997517] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Stopping disk >> >> > > [ 202.997806] PM: Some devices failed to suspend >> >> > > [ 202.998085] sd 2:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk >> >> > > [ 202.998144] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Starting disk >> >> > > [ 202.998614] serial 00:09: activated >> >> > > [ 202.999158] parport_pc 00:0b: activated >> >> > > [ 204.543094] PM: resume of devices complete after 1545.282 msecs >> >> > > [ 204.543268] PM: Finishing wakeup. >> >> > > [ 204.543270] Restarting tasks ... done. >> >> > > >> >> > > ...error 38 is ENOSYS, and the 00:02 is this: >> >> > > >> >> > > # cat /sys/bus/pnp/devices/00\:02/id >> >> > > IFX0102 >> >> > > PNP0c31 >> >> > Also the tpm_tis driver handles both of these. Can you confirm which >> >> > module that laptop was using (tpm_tis or tpm_infineon) and try whether >> >> > one of them works better than the other one? Please do a reboot between >> >> > trying one and then the other. >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's using tpm_tis: >> >> >> >> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 0 Mar 28 13:40 /sys/bus/pnp/devices/00:02/driver -> ../../../bus/pnp/drivers/tpm_tis >> >> >> >> FWIW, the fedora kernels have this: >> >> >> >> CONFIG_TCG_TPM=y >> >> CONFIG_TCG_TIS=y >> >> CONFIG_TCG_NSC=m >> >> CONFIG_TCG_ATMEL=m >> >> CONFIG_TCG_INFINEON=m >> >> >> >> When I boot, tpm_infineon is also plugged in, but I can remove that >> >> module and nothing seems to change (not sure what's plugging it in). >> >> >> >> I can try using tpm_infineon, but I'm not sure how to disable tpm_tis >> >> with it compiled in like this -- is that possible? >> >> >> >> > Try the following before and after a suspend/resume: >> >> > >> >> > cd /sys >> >> > find . | grep caps$ | xargs cat >> >> > >> >> > It should display manufacturer data. >> >> > >> >> >> >> There's only one "caps" file. Here's the before (after a fresh reboot): >> >> >> >> # cat ./devices/pnp0/00:02/caps >> >> Manufacturer: 0x49465800 >> >> TCG version: 1.2 >> >> Firmware version: 1.0 >> >> >> >> ...after a successful suspend/resume cycle: >> >> >> >> # cat ./devices/pnp0/00:02/caps >> >> >> >> ...it gives no output at all. Guess that lends some weight to the >> >> theory of it not being reset properly on resume? >> >> >> >> Thanks for the help so far... >> > >> > FWIW, I turned up dynamic debugging on the tpm files and got this in >> > the ring buffer when I tried to read from "caps": >> > >> > [ 6880.495071] tpm_tis 00:02: A TPM error (38) occurred attempting to determine the manufacturer >> > >> > I don't see any obvious places that return ENOSYS in the tpm code, so >> > I'm not clear on where that's coming from... >> > >> >> From drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c, >> >> static ssize_t transmit_cmd(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct tpm_cmd_t *cmd, >> int len, const char *desc) >> { >> int err; >> >> len = tpm_transmit(chip,(u8 *) cmd, len); >> if (len < 0) >> return len; >> if (len == TPM_ERROR_SIZE) { >> err = be32_to_cpu(cmd->header.out.return_code); >> dev_dbg(chip->dev, "A TPM error (%d) occurred %s\n", err, desc); >> return err; >> } >> return 0; >> } >> >> Where, desc comes from rc = tpm_getcap(dev, TPM_CAP_PROP_MANUFACTURER, >> &cap, "attempting to determine the manufacturer"); >> >> TPM_ERROR_SIZE is 10, looks like it satisfies that condition. >> > > Ahh yeah, I misread the code... > > I guess then this error comes from the chip itself? Interesting that it > uses posix errors. Still though, it does seem like it's coming back > from resume in a bad state... >
Yup, it looks like the chip is at fault. The chip isn't supplying an appropriate value for the capability TPM_CAP_PROP_MANUFACTURER (See page 2 of [1], and compare with drivers/tpm/tpm.c). What is not clear is whether the fault in the chip's response is due to the driver code(maybe due to a firmware update etc.) or due to actual hardware corruption.
http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/resource_files/137A54A3-1A4B-B294-D088F24684D141E1/Vendor%20ID%20Registry_0.1.pdf
sk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |