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: <20170914122856.guu76zv6xb5kdrfc@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 05:28:56 -0700 From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> To: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, peterhuewe@....de, tpmdd@...horst.net, jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ima-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, patrickc@...ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] tpm: use tpm_msleep() value as max delay On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 02:55:34PM +0530, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > On 09/13/2017 06:17 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 08:56:39AM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > Currently, tpm_msleep() uses delay_msec as the minimum value in > > > usleep_range. However, that is the maximum time we want to wait. > > > The function is modified to use the delay_msec as the maximum > > > value, not the minimum value. > > > > > > After this change, performance on a TPM 1.2 with an 8 byte > > > burstcount for 1000 extends improved from ~9sec to ~8sec. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > > index eb2f8818eded..ff5a8b7b80b9 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h > > > @@ -533,8 +533,8 @@ int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask, unsigned long timeout, > > > static inline void tpm_msleep(unsigned int delay_msec) > > > { > > > - usleep_range(delay_msec * 1000, > > > - (delay_msec * 1000) + TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US); > > > + usleep_range((delay_msec * 1000) - TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US, > > > + delay_msec * 1000); > > > }; > > > struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(int chip_num); > > > -- > > > 2.13.3 > > > > > Doesn't this need a Fixes tag? > Yeah.. will add. No need just for that. I'll test this when I'm back in Finland. It was a question just to check that I'm in the same page :-) /Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists