From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794435633; b=cOnt2WUTjc4QsCejpAB5/jvyOVXDwHuRBsIKC5wYFad4MaRiDxXySIQ+pupExEOMA+Lj dIz1iQyeuhewErmm3pBYe+HqyvplUVk6OVrKIGHrGJVt7sHAmM9s+5btD6Mchkm2uDy98 2ctgXe1wjsHeXDUQGL4fGoY1fAn/fNiDq+saRUA2et1Q7fADcaMdwqV8eYvOM6rhQnifK 1X/bNrAzSTOLQvsh204ZxJ+8q5wU8bPMskiYEb1E8yedGq6ysu4/NQEhVX4SukJfcsY1o 3ORF+/RzdcD4EN3EM/KW4s2VjHWVmTh1W/91UlmZwumniHw73HJEgzh3B1I8B5od6rg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794435633; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=K4KdjqORRmEBTUM7t1u578GKcdnKKYKwwNZ9QN2PlGg=; b=t98C70ksipPFsDGk23E7qe/DV2oI0gJnBOsNFleOtOQqgcFGszijsGz9xTsKXQyJ7BTW xf1LXxF67NWKPDpHUzG6QyyyIS19/Bb4GrJVNizdFEZoKx1R4hBtYryhOKUGT70uz5EpO dforBb/GY9mv/QUj3bQ7tSjn6BYFZ7xUznAc28zNLTnPKxT2wz03st8qJQl9p1o/l5DcW +CCLeGLbxFdpUkFhHUI4mzPQvV7XlcEiXEAWmZk1a+0vmDZpc0hmqbhcPVMdjSNaFNmNW SDwSGopZl716vTOZqp0j9acdxLAr9ENRWkFHK7KlUMuwTpJmaHglk8oujlxRguKu3uQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=LlwaUFls; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 3145D606A31C; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 22:20:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=LlwaUFls Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 3944E1F00A05; Wed, 11 Nov 2026 22:20:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1794435632; bh=K4KdjqORRmEBTUM7t1u578GKcdnKKYKwwNZ9QN2PlGg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=LlwaUFlsfzgkM6AuRKez9QzQX0TEEOJxmHs4kOCmH5iQ4veaMq20Wa6hNzuOffLGU /CEok1195hJxoq5ng6lcAX2NfMRl6Y7NtbD54nGZrSQjoaxja2xaIg2VNLgh19NZxw g4h8eufMAMmLaXCkGW3wtuyQjSsM35T58/E/NhPApSqE9Zi4Us+7FfQ5iEVVS7Beho ZyFj9YKTlYH1cSGmuYuKtXFVtgs80IeII4k8gN+O42gAxWmBAFUT+iE3lhdWkSbhFT GHMIdU0M9B7ZOb4EuA65QCTXT78ShyX6D0mQ28EN8kJVv//deO46Dy8zNL1L8P0MRt ZuBwc0lQ+ohyg== Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2026 00:20:28 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Breno Leitao Cc: Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, surenkj@amazon.com, noodles@meta.com, kernel-team@meta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: Disable a TPM whose hwrng reads keep failing Message-ID: References: <20261111-tpm_unresponsive-v1-0-42ac1b965eb9@debian.org> <20261111-tpm_unresponsive-v1-2-42ac1b965eb9@debian.org> X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 12:16:30AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > I'm thinking here that why not disable on first failure? It's a more intrusive change, yes, but then again having a count would require assumption that there is high odds e.g., for the following scenario: 1. TPM hwrng fails. 2. TPM hwrng succeeds. I don't this is very likely to ever happen... So thus I'd drill this even more than you did. Br, Jarkko