Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Feb 2017 21:10:04 +0200 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] tpm2: add session handle context saving and restoring to the space code |
| |
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 08:17:11AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:32 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:07:08PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> > [...] > > > +static int tpm2_session_add(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 handle) > > > +{ > > > + struct tpm_space *space = &chip->work_space; > > > + int i; > > > + > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(space->session_tbl); i++) > > > + if (space->session_tbl[i] == 0) > > > + break; > > > + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(space->session_tbl)) { > > > + dev_err(&chip->dev, "out of session slots\n"); > > > > This really should be dev_dbg. > > This was my reply to the comment the last time: > > I can do that, but I think this should be higher than debug. If > this trips, something an application was doing will fail with a non > TPM error and someone may wish to investigate why. Having a kernel > message would help with that (but they won't see it if it's debug). > > I'm also leaning towards the idea that we should actually have one > more _tbl slot than we know the TPM does, so that if someone goes > over it's the TPM that gives them a real TPM out of memory error > rather than the space code returning -ENOMEM. > > If you agree, I think it should be four for both sessions_tbl and > context_tbl. > > So I really don't think it should be debug. Could we compromise on > dev_info? > > James
Oops, I'm sorry about that. I use the release chaos as an excuse :-) I would lower it to dev_warn().
/Jarkko
| |