| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <35286B1AE75A7C47BFF0870081A31B4B49E400663F@SAFEX1MAIL4.st.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:43:01 +0200
From: Mathias LEBLANC <Mathias.LEBLANC@...com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Kent Yoder <key@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rajiv Andrade <mail@...jiv.net>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
Sirrix AG <tpmdd@...rix.com>,
"tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean-Luc BLANC <jean-luc.blanc@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] TPM: STMicroelectronics st33 driver SPI
Hello Andy,
Thanks for your support, I will fix these code style problem.
However in a first time, can we publish this SPI driver?
I think that it will be preferable to submit it and apply some patch if it's only coding style error.
I have fix errors in this patch that has been discovered in the I2C patch, so I don't know what's stop this submission.
I think that's driver is more criticized than the I2C driver although it's the same base.
I know that's important to have good code in the kernel source and I'm agree about that,
I propose it be published as a first release and I fix coding style problem in a second time.
Thanks,
Mathias Leblanc
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Shevchenko [mailto:andy.shevchenko@...il.com]
Sent: 19 May, 2013 12:36
To: Mathias LEBLANC
Cc: Kent Yoder; Rajiv Andrade; Marcel Selhorst; Sirrix AG; tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Jean-Luc BLANC
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] TPM: STMicroelectronics st33 driver SPI
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Matthias Leblanc <mathias.leblanc@...com> wrote:
> From: Mathias Leblanc <mathias.leblanc@...com>
Which name is correct? You have not to have this From: line if submitter and author is the same person.
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_spi_stm_st33.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,943 @@
> +/*
> + * STMicroelectronics TPM SPI Linux driver for TPM ST33ZP24
> + * Copyright (C) 2009, 2010 STMicroelectronics
2013 as well?
> + * 09/15/2010: First shot driver tpm_tis driver for lpc is
> + * used as model.
I beleive it could fit one line.
> +#include "tpm.h"
> +
Seems redundant empty line.
> +#include "tpm_spi_stm_st33.h"
> +enum stm33zp24_int_flags {
> + TPM_GLOBAL_INT_ENABLE = 0x80,
> + TPM_INTF_CMD_READY_INT = 0x080,
What the difference? It looks like first constant is not belong to this enum.
> +static int spi_write8_reg(struct tpm_chip *tpm, u8 tpm_register,
> + u8 *tpm_data, u16 tpm_size) {
> + u8 data = 0;
> + int total_length = 0, nbr_dummy_bytes;
> + int value = 0;
> + struct spi_device *dev =
> + (struct spi_device __force *)tpm->vendor.iobase;
> + struct st33zp24_platform_data *platform_data = dev->dev.platform_data;
> + u8 *data_buffer = platform_data->tpm_spi_buffer[0];
It seems a bad idea to have buffers in platform_data. I bet the buffers should be part of other struct. What did I miss?
> + struct spi_transfer xfer = {
> + .tx_buf = data_buffer,
> + .rx_buf = platform_data->tpm_spi_buffer[1],
> + };
... even this entire structure.
Can you consider to use spi_message API ?
> +
Redundant empty line.
> + data = (tpm_size >> 8) & 0x00ff;
No need to do & 0xff. You have u8 type anyway.
> + data_buffer[total_length++] = data;
> + data = tpm_size & 0x00ff;
Ditto.
> +static unsigned long wait_for_serirq_timeout(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> + bool condition, unsigned long timeout) {
> + long status = 0;
> + struct spi_device *client;
> + struct st33zp24_platform_data *pin_infos;
> +
> + client = (struct spi_device __force *)chip->vendor.iobase;
Is there any better storage for this pointer? It seems an abuse of iobase member.
> + pin_infos = client->dev.platform_data;
> +
> + status = wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> + &pin_infos->irq_detection, timeout);
> + if (status > 0)
> + enable_irq(gpio_to_irq(pin_infos->io_serirq));
> + gpio_direction_input(pin_infos->io_serirq);
> +
> + if (!status) {
> + status = -EBUSY;
> + goto wait_end;
> + }
> + clear_interruption(chip);
> + if (condition)
> + status = 1;
> +
> +wait_end:
Redundant label. Use direct return wherever it applies.
> + return status;
> +/*
> + * tpm_stm_spi_cancel, cancel is not implemented.
> + * @param: chip, the tpm chip description as specified in
> + * driver/char/tpm/tpm.h.
Just mention the member and struct names here, no need to refer to entire file.
> + */
> +static void tpm_stm_spi_cancel(struct tpm_chip *chip) {
> + u8 data = TPM_STS_COMMAND_READY;
> +
> + /* this causes the current command to be aborted */
> + spi_write8_reg(chip, TPM_STS, &data, 1); } /*
> +tpm_stm_spi_cancel() */
This comment is redundant.
> +} /* tpm_stm_spi_status() */
Ditto.
Here and anywhere in the file.
> +
> +
> +
Couple of redundant empty lines.
> +static int request_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip) {
> + unsigned long stop;
> + long rc;
> + u8 data = 0;
Redundant assignment. Please, check entire file for such assignments.
> +end:
Redundant label.
> + return -EACCES;
> +static int get_burstcount(struct tpm_chip *chip) {
> + tpm_reg = tpm_reg + 1;
tpm_reg++;
> +end:
Redundant label. Please, clean up entire file from such useless labels.
> + return -EBUSY;
> +static int recv_data(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t count) {
> + burstcnt = get_burstcount(chip);
> + len = min_t(int, burstcnt, count - size);
> + status = spi_read8_reg(chip, TPM_DATA_FIFO, buf + size, len);
> + if (status < 0)
> + return status;
> +
> +
Useless empty line(s).
> +static int tpm_stm_spi_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, unsigned char *buf,
> + size_t len) {
> + u32 burstcnt = 0, i, size = 0;
> + u8 data = 0;
> + long status = 0, ret = 0;
> +
> + if (chip == NULL)
> + return -EBUSY;
-EINVAL, btw.
> + if (len < TPM_HEADER_SIZE)
> + return -EBUSY;
Same.
> +static int tpm_stm_spi_recv(struct tpm_chip *chip, unsigned char *buf,
> + size_t count) {
> + int size = 0;
> + int expected;
> +
> + if (chip == NULL)
> + return -EBUSY;
-EINVAL. Check entire code.
> + if (count < TPM_HEADER_SIZE) {
> + size = -EIO;
> + goto out;
> + }
You will perform asymmetric actions here. At least it requires some explanations in the header of fuction.
> +static int interrupts;
> +module_param(interrupts, int, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(interrupts, "Enable interrupts");
> +
> +static int power_mgt = 1;
> +module_param(power_mgt, int, 0444);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(power_mgt, "Power Management");
Move this section to the top/bottom of the file.
> +static int
> +tpm_st33_spi_probe(struct spi_device *dev) {
> + long err = 0;
> + u8 intmask;
> + struct tpm_chip *chip;
> + struct st33zp24_platform_data *platform_data;
> +
> + /* Check SPI platform functionnalities */
> + if (dev == NULL) {
> + pr_info("dev is NULL. exiting.\n");
Looks like debug print. Should be remove
> + err = -ENODEV;
> + goto end;
return -ENODEV;
> + chip = tpm_register_hardware(&dev->dev, &st_spi_tpm);
> + if (!chip) {
> + err = -ENODEV;
> + goto end;
Ditto.
> + /* Allocation of SPI buffers MISO and MOSI */
> + /* Size is as follow: */
> + /* Request burstcount value = 0x800 = 2048 */
> + /* + */
> + /* Response burstcount value = 0x400 = 1024 */
> + /* + */
> + /* At least: */
> + /* 1 byte for direction/locality */
> + /* 1 byte tpm tis register */
> + /* 2 bytes spi data length (for request only) */
> + /* 2 latency bytes */
> + /* 1 status byte */
> + /* = 2048 + 1024 + 7 */
> + /* We reserved 2048 + 1024 + 20 in case latency byte */
> + /* change */
Looks like a candidate to *.h file in the struct description.
> + platform_data = dev->dev.platform_data;
And as I said already, it's not a platform_data.
> +
> + if (platform_data)
if (!platform_data)
return -ENODEV;
> + platform_data->tpm_spi_buffer[0] =
> + kmalloc((TPM_BUFSIZE + (TPM_BUFSIZE / 2) +
> + TPM_DIGEST_SIZE) * sizeof(u8),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
This magic calc may gone when you will use dedicated constant with mentioned explanations.
> + else
> + goto end;
Remove those two.
> + chip->vendor.iobase = (void __iomem *)dev;
Don't like this one. Try to find better way to drag pointer.
> + pr_info("TPM SPI Initialized\n");
Something like
#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt at the very top of file could be helpful.
> + if (platform_data->tpm_spi_buffer[1] != NULL) {
Redundant check.
> + kfree(platform_data->tpm_spi_buffer[1]);
> + if (platform_data->tpm_spi_buffer[0] != NULL) {
Ditto.
> +/*
> + * tpm_st33_spi_remove remove the TPM device
> + * @param: client, the spi_device drescription (TPM SPI description).
> + clear_bit(0, &chip->is_open);
Leftover?
> + * @return: 0 in case of success.
> + */
> +static int tpm_st33_spi_remove(struct spi_device *client) {
> + struct tpm_chip *chip = (struct tpm_chip *)spi_get_drvdata(client);
> + struct st33zp24_platform_data *pin_infos =
> + ((struct spi_device __force
> +*)chip->vendor.iobase)->dev.platform_data;
> +
> + if (pin_infos != NULL) {
> + gpio_free(pin_infos->io_lpcpd);
> +
> + /* Check if chip has been previously clean */
> + if (pin_infos->bchipf != true)
> + tpm_remove_hardware(chip->dev);
> + if (pin_infos->tpm_spi_buffer[1] != NULL) {
Redundant check.
> + kfree(pin_infos->tpm_spi_buffer[1]);
> + pin_infos->tpm_spi_buffer[1] = NULL;
> + }
> + if (pin_infos->tpm_spi_buffer[0] != NULL) {
Ditto.
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_spi_stm_st33.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
> +/*
> + * STMicroelectronics TPM SPI Linux driver for TPM ST33NP18
> + * Copyright (C) 2009, 2010 STMicroelectronics
2013 as well?
> +#define TPM_ACCESS (0x0)
> +#define TPM_STS (0x18)
> +#define TPM_DATA_FIFO (0x24)
> +#define TPM_HASH_DATA (0x24)
> +#define TPM_INTF_CAPABILITY (0x14)
> +#define TPM_INT_STATUS (0x10)
> +#define TPM_INT_ENABLE (0x08)
What the point to embrace those constants?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists