lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] TPM: integrity fix
Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Rajiv Andrade (srajiv@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
>
>> Fix to function which is called by IMA, now tpm_chip_find_get() considers the case in which the machine doesn't have a TPM or, if it has, its TPM isn't enabled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>
> Is this to fix James' problem with IMA on bootup?
>
>
Yes.
> Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c | 8 +++++---
>> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c
>> index 0387965..912a473 100644
>> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c
>> @@ -666,18 +666,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_show_temp_deactivated);
>> */
>> static struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(int chip_num)
>> {
>> - struct tpm_chip *pos;
>> + struct tpm_chip *pos, *chip = NULL;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, &tpm_chip_list, list) {
>>
>
> Crap I even paused for a second when I reviewed the original
> patch. I think the conversation in my head went something like
> "but will pos be NULL at the end of the loop?" "Oh, it must". gah.
>
>
Yeah, I thought the same and let it pass by..

Rajiv
>> if (chip_num != TPM_ANY_NUM && chip_num != pos->dev_num)
>> continue;
>>
>> - if (try_module_get(pos->dev->driver->owner))
>> + if (try_module_get(pos->dev->driver->owner)) {
>> + chip = pos;
>> break;
>> + }
>> }
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> - return pos;
>> + return chip;
>> }
>>
>> #define TPM_ORDINAL_PCRREAD cpu_to_be32(21)
>> --
>> 1.5.6.3
>>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-05 17:09    [W:0.044 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site