[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141007180417.GA29459@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 21:04:17 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Ashley Lai <ashley@...leylai.com>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v2 2/7] tpm: two-phase chip management
functions
Hi
And thanks for the feedback. Change requests look very reasonable.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 11:50:17AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 08:01:12PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Added tpm_chip_alloc() and tpm_chip_register() where tpm_chip_alloc()
> > reserves memory resources and tpm_chip_register() initializes the
> > device driver. This way it is possible to alter struct tpm_chip
> > attributes before passing it to tpm_chip_register().
>
> This looks broadly reasonable to me
>
> Please add a note to the commit that this is known to still have
> problems with resource reference counting, but they are less severe
> than what existed before, and this is only an interm step.
>
> > +/**
> > + * tpm_chip_alloc() - allocate a new struct tpm_chip instance
>
> This is using devm so it should be called 'tpmm_chip_alloc()' for
> clarity
>
>
> I know that was there before, but it sure is racy:
>
> > + chip->dev_num = find_first_zero_bit(dev_mask, TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
> [..]
> > + set_bit(chip->dev_num, dev_mask);
>
> Someday it should use IDR.
>
>
> > @@ -896,18 +872,7 @@ void tpm_remove_hardware(struct device *dev)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - spin_lock(&driver_lock);
> > - list_del_rcu(&chip->list);
> > - spin_unlock(&driver_lock);
> > - synchronize_rcu();
> > -
> > - tpm_dev_del_device(chip);
> > - tpm_sysfs_del_device(chip);
> > - tpm_remove_ppi(&dev->kobj);
> > - tpm_bios_log_teardown(chip->bios_dir);
> > -
> > - /* write it this way to be explicit (chip->dev == dev) */
> > - put_device(chip->dev);
> > + tpm_chip_unregister(chip);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_remove_hardware);
>
> This can move to tpm-chip too, same with tpm_register_hardware
>
> > @@ -714,15 +709,10 @@ static int tpm_tis_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> > struct tpm_chip *chip = tpm_dev.chip;
> > release_locality(chip, chip->vendor.locality, 1);
> >
> > - /* close file handles */
> > - tpm_dev_vendor_release(chip);
> > -
> > /* remove hardware */
> > tpm_remove_hardware(chip->dev);
>
> Wrong ordering here, tpm_remove_hardware should always be first -
> drivers should not tear down internal state before calling it, so
> release_locality should be second.
>
> Noting that since we use devm the kfree will not happen until
> remove returns, so the chip pointer is still valid.
>
> > /* reset these pointers, otherwise we oops */
> > - chip->dev->release = NULL;
> > - chip->release = NULL;
> > tpm_dev.client = NULL;
>
> The comment can go too
>
> Note: tpm_dev should be driver private data, but that is not your
> problem..
>
> Did you test compile all the drivers? One of my git commits on github
> has some hackery to make that possible on x86.
Yeah, I compiled all the drivers:
$ grep CONFIG_TCG .config
CONFIG_TCG_TPM=m
CONFIG_TCG_TIS=m
CONFIG_TCG_TIS_I2C_ATMEL=m
CONFIG_TCG_TIS_I2C_INFINEON=m
CONFIG_TCG_TIS_I2C_NUVOTON=m
CONFIG_TCG_NSC=m
CONFIG_TCG_ATMEL=m
CONFIG_TCG_INFINEON=m
CONFIG_TCG_ST33_I2C=m
CONFIG_TCG_XEN=m
CONFIG_TCG_CRB=m
> Jason
/Jarkko
--
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