Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:05:46 -0200 | From | Rajiv Andrade <> | Subject | Re: [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 >>
| |