[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1486743431.2502.6.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:17:11 -0800
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] tpm2: add session handle context saving and
restoring to the space code
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 14:32 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:07:08PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
[...]
> > +static int tpm2_session_add(struct tpm_chip *chip, u32 handle)
> > +{
> > + struct tpm_space *space = &chip->work_space;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(space->session_tbl); i++)
> > + if (space->session_tbl[i] == 0)
> > + break;
> > + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(space->session_tbl)) {
> > + dev_err(&chip->dev, "out of session slots\n");
>
> This really should be dev_dbg.
This was my reply to the comment the last time:
I can do that, but I think this should be higher than debug. If
this trips, something an application was doing will fail with a non
TPM error and someone may wish to investigate why. Having a kernel
message would help with that (but they won't see it if it's debug).
I'm also leaning towards the idea that we should actually have one
more _tbl slot than we know the TPM does, so that if someone goes
over it's the TPM that gives them a real TPM out of memory error
rather than the space code returning -ENOMEM.
If you agree, I think it should be four for both sessions_tbl and
context_tbl.
So I really don't think it should be debug. Could we compromise on
dev_info?
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists