[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080809184622.GA22905@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:46:22 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>, safford@...son.ibm.com,
serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, sailer@...son.ibm.com, zohar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface
> +{
> + struct tpm_chip *pos;
> +
> + spin_lock(&driver_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(pos, &tpm_chip_list, list) {
> + if ((chip_num == TPM_ANY_NUM || pos->dev_num == chip_num)
> + && (chip_typ == TPM_ANY_TYPE)) {
> + spin_unlock(&driver_lock);
> + return pos;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock(&driver_lock);
besides the usual coding style issues, what protects the chip from going
away afer you dropped the lock?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists