From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24B3C433E6 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 00:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A4364E1B for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 00:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232592AbhAaAmA (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jan 2021 19:42:00 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55532 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232295AbhAaAlz (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jan 2021 19:41:55 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [IPv6:2607:fcd0:100:8a00::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC954C061573; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 16:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917F812800EA; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 16:41:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1612053675; bh=ujtvEXo0CAfqmJN44waKH6NoDvjf3jsEyhgN1RaHQKY=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VdVE+YSjkvz+BQdHyt5wLQrJhz/cGQgTjW55CmdVViEjBK4HKsIlrxNE6/jaTwKO5 o5reCzjfiWUryNl7b2UZgZo3F7GBrtxJjmTMDmvgoQFh2gpksWB3s6ArSBPV/eR0lx OHtn2sihbJhl3BggArmpUu9qZE+fzyVGnJXtl3TA= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OeonLmAfWZ0J; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 16:41:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from jarvis.int.hansenpartnership.com (unknown [IPv6:2601:600:8280:66d1::c447]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00C641280027; Sat, 30 Jan 2021 16:41:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1612053675; bh=ujtvEXo0CAfqmJN44waKH6NoDvjf3jsEyhgN1RaHQKY=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VdVE+YSjkvz+BQdHyt5wLQrJhz/cGQgTjW55CmdVViEjBK4HKsIlrxNE6/jaTwKO5 o5reCzjfiWUryNl7b2UZgZo3F7GBrtxJjmTMDmvgoQFh2gpksWB3s6ArSBPV/eR0lx OHtn2sihbJhl3BggArmpUu9qZE+fzyVGnJXtl3TA= Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: Add missing start/stop_tpm_chip calls From: James Bottomley To: Guenter Roeck , Jarkko Sakkinen , =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz?= Majczak Cc: Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Radoslaw Biernacki , Marcin Wojtas , Alex Levin Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2021 16:41:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: <7a702108-ec9e-b2e2-be89-3590437c0eb5@roeck-us.net> References: <20210123014247.989368-1-lma@semihalf.com> <20210125171846.GA31929@roeck-us.net> <7a702108-ec9e-b2e2-be89-3590437c0eb5@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2021-01-30 at 15:49 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 1/29/21 2:59 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:46:07PM +0100, Łukasz Majczak wrote: > > > Hi Jarkko, Guenter > > > > > > Yes, here are the logs when failure occurs - > > > https://gist.github.com/semihalf-majczak-lukasz/1575461f585f1e7fb1e9366b8eceaab9 > > > Look for a phrase "TPM returned invalid status" > > > > > > Guenter - good suggestion - I will try to keep it as tight as > > > possible. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Lukasz > > > > Is it possible for you try out with linux-next? Thanks. It's a > > known issue, which ought to be fixed by now. > > > > The log message is harmless, it'a warning not panic, and does not > > endanger system stability. WARN()'s always dump stack trace. No > > oops is happening. > > > > There is a note in the kernel documentation which states: > > Note that the WARN()-family should only be used for "expected to > be unreachable" situations. If you want to warn about "reachable > but undesirable" situations, please use the pr_warn()-family of > functions. It fits the definition. The warning only triggers if the access is in the wrong locality, which should be impossible, so the warning should be unreachable. James > It seems to me that "harmless" doesn't really fit the expected > use of WARN(). Should it possibly be converted to pr_warn() ?