Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 5.3 boot regression caused by 5.3 TPM changes | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Sun, 4 Aug 2019 18:12:32 +0200 |
| |
Hi,
On 04-08-19 17:33, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 13:00, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> While testing 5.3-rc2 on an Irbis TW90 Intel Cherry Trail based >> tablet I noticed that it does not boot on this device. >> >> A git bisect points to commit 166a2809d65b ("tpm: Don't duplicate >> events from the final event log in the TCG2 log") >> >> And I can confirm that reverting just that single commit makes >> the TW90 boot again. >> >> This machine uses AptIO firmware with base component versions >> of: UEFI 2.4 PI 1.3. I've tried to reproduce the problem on >> a Teclast X80 Pro which is also CHT based and also uses AptIO >> firmware with the same base components. But it does not reproduce >> there. Neither does the problem reproduce on a CHT tablet using >> InsideH20 based firmware. >> >> Note that these devices have a software/firmware TPM-2.0 >> implementation, they do not have an actual TPM chip. >> >> Comparing TPM firmware setting between the 2 AptIO based >> tablets the settings are identical, but the troublesome >> TW90 does have some more setting then the X80, it has >> the following settings which are not shown on the X80: >> >> Active PCR banks: SHA-1 (read only) >> Available PCR banks: SHA-1,SHA256 (read only) >> TPM2.0 UEFI SPEC version: TCG_2 (other possible setting: TCG_1_2 >> Physical Presence SPEC ver: 1.2 (other possible setting: 1.3) >> >> I have the feeling that at least the first 2 indicate that >> the previous win10 installation has actually used the >> TPM, where as on the X80 the TPM is uninitialized. >> Note this is just a hunch I could be completely wrong. >> >> I would be happy to run any commands to try and debug this >> or to build a kernel with some patches to gather more info. >> >> Note any kernel patches to printk some debug stuff need >> to be based on 5.3 with 166a2809d65b reverted, without that >> reverted the device will not boot, and thus I cannot collect >> logs without it reverted. >> > > Are you booting a 64-bit kernel on 32-bit firmware?
Yes you are right, I must say that this is somewhat surprising most Cherry Trail devices do use 64 bit firmware (where as Bay Trail typically uses 32 bit). But I just checked efibootmgr output and it says it is booting: \EFI\FEDORA\SHIMIA32.EFI so yeah 32 bit firmware.
Recent Fedora releases take care of this so seamlessly I did not even realize...
Regards,
Hans
| |