Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:34:52 -0600 | From | Jason Gunthorpe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0 |
| |
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Added two new callbacks to struct tpm_class_ops: > > - request_locality > - relinquish_locality > > These are called before sending and receiving data from the TPM. We > update also tpm_tis_core to use these callbacks. Small modification to > request_locality() is done so that it returns -EBUSY instead of locality > number when check_locality() fails.
Make sense
I think you may as well do the other two drivers, even though you can't run them the transformation looks safe enough to me.
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 9 +++++++++ > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 12 ++++-------- > include/linux/tpm.h | 3 ++- > 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > index e38c792..9c56581 100644 > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > @@ -407,6 +407,12 @@ ssize_t tpm_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct tpm_space *space, > if (chip->dev.parent) > pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev.parent); > > + if (chip->ops->request_locality) { > + rc = chip->ops->request_locality(chip, 0); > + if (rc) > + goto out;
If request_locality fails we probably shouldn't call relinquish_locality on the unwind path..
I think you should also put a relinquish_locality inside tpm_remove ?
> + int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc); > + void (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc, > bool force);
Let us document what force is supposed to do...
I'm not sure why we have it?
Jason
| |