| 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: <20170506150911.1612bb15@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 15:09:11 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Char/Misc driver patches for 4.12-rc1
Hi Linus,
On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:01:34 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I actually would have preferred to not get any early merges, but what
> I was unhappy about is that I also didn't really get any heads-up
> about the cdev_device_add() conflict.
>
> I did get notified about the other conflict (thanks, James), but
> somehow the cdev_device_add() changes didn't cause the same kind of
> notification.
>
> So my unhappiness is not about me having to resolve things (I'm happy
> to do that) but about how apparently -next failed to notice that part
> of my merge resolution. Or maybe it was noticed in -next, but then the
> information about it got lost.
>
> I prefer doing merge resolutions myself, but I *also* really really
> prefer the two sides of the conflict having been more aware of the
> clash.
Would that be this?
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the char-misc tree with the tpmdd tree
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:33:02 +1100
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the char-misc tree got a conflict in:
drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
between commits:
67b67480db8b ("tpm: infrastructure for TPM spaces")
b8e3586e8536 ("tpm: expose spaces via a device link /dev/tpmrm<n>")
from the tpmdd tree and commit:
8dbbf5825181 ("tpm-chip: utilize new cdev_device_add helper function")
from the char-misc tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
index aade6995f310,935f0e92ad61..000000000000
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c
@@@ -214,22 -186,7 +214,20 @@@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_alloc(struct
chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_VIRTUAL;
cdev_init(&chip->cdev, &tpm_fops);
+ cdev_init(&chip->cdevs, &tpmrm_fops);
chip->cdev.owner = THIS_MODULE;
+ chip->cdevs.owner = THIS_MODULE;
- chip->cdev.kobj.parent = &chip->dev.kobj;
- chip->cdevs.kobj.parent = &chip->devs.kobj;
+
+ chip->work_space.context_buf = kzalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!chip->work_space.context_buf) {
+ rc = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
+ }
+ chip->work_space.session_buf = kzalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!chip->work_space.session_buf) {
+ rc = -ENOMEM;
+ goto out;
+ }
return chip;
@@@ -273,44 -229,13 +271,22 @@@ static int tpm_add_char_device(struct t
{
int rc;
- rc = cdev_add(&chip->cdev, chip->dev.devt, 1);
+ rc = cdev_device_add(&chip->cdev, &chip->dev);
if (rc) {
dev_err(&chip->dev,
- "unable to cdev_add() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
+ "unable to cdev_device_add() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
dev_name(&chip->dev), MAJOR(chip->dev.devt),
MINOR(chip->dev.devt), rc);
+ return rc;
+ }
- rc = device_add(&chip->dev);
- if (rc) {
- dev_err(&chip->dev,
- "unable to device_register() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
- dev_name(&chip->dev), MAJOR(chip->dev.devt),
- MINOR(chip->dev.devt), rc);
-
- cdev_del(&chip->cdev);
- return rc;
- }
-
- if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
- rc = cdev_add(&chip->cdevs, chip->devs.devt, 1);
- if (rc) {
- dev_err(&chip->dev,
- "unable to cdev_add() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
- dev_name(&chip->devs), MAJOR(chip->devs.devt),
- MINOR(chip->devs.devt), rc);
- return rc;
- }
-
+ if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
- rc = device_add(&chip->devs);
++ rc = cdev_device_add(&chip->cdevs, &chip->devs);
+ if (rc) {
+ dev_err(&chip->dev,
- "unable to device_register() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
++ "unable to cdev_device_add() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
+ dev_name(&chip->devs), MAJOR(chip->devs.devt),
+ MINOR(chip->devs.devt), rc);
- cdev_del(&chip->cdevs);
return rc;
}
@@@ -447,10 -371,6 +422,8 @@@ void tpm_chip_unregister(struct tpm_chi
{
tpm_del_legacy_sysfs(chip);
tpm_bios_log_teardown(chip);
- if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) {
- cdev_del(&chip->cdevs);
- device_del(&chip->devs);
- }
++ if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
++ cdev_device_del(&chip->cdevs, &chip->devs);
tpm_del_char_device(chip);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_chip_unregister);
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists