[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335346910.1611.9.camel@t41.thuisdomein>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:41:50 +0200
From: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
To: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TPM: chip disabled state erronously being reported as
error
Rajiv,
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 17:57 -0300, Rajiv Andrade wrote:
> Can you test it?
Sure. Your patch applied cleanly to the current Fedora 16 kernel's
sources (ie, kernel-3.3.2-6.fc16). One boot and one suspend-and-resume
cycle both were without the error message that bothered me so much.
That should be all testing that this patch needs, shouldn't it?
> tpm_do_selftest() attempts to read a PCR in order to
> decide if one can rely on the TPM being used or not.
> The function that's used by __tpm_pcr_read() does not
> expect the TPM to be disabled or deactivated, and if so,
> reports an error.
>
> It's fine if the TPM returns this error when trying to
> use it for the first time after a power cycle, but it's
> definitely not if it already returned success for a
> previous attempt to read one of its PCRs.
>
> The tpm_do_selftest() was modified so that the driver only
> reports this return code as an error when it really is.
>
> Reported-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
I guess that is now "Reported-and-tested-by", even though the test was
run against a v3.3.2 based kernel.
> Signed-off-by: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Should this be CC-ed to stable for v3.3?
Paul Bolle
--
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