[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180206200255.ib7hblberqj6anh5@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 22:02:55 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
"linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] tpm: cmd_ready command can be issued only after
granting locality
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:17:53PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 09:51:00AM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/tpm.h b/include/linux/tpm.h index
> > > bcdd3790e94d..06639fb6ab85 100644
> > > +++ b/include/linux/tpm.h
> > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ struct tpm_class_ops {
> > > bool (*update_timeouts)(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > unsigned long *timeout_cap);
> > > int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> > > - void (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> > > + int (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc);
> >
> > This seems wrong.. What is the core code supposed to do if relinquish fails?
>
> Not much just propage the error to the caller and leave the policy
> decision to it.
Your patch set must either cover this or keep it as void.
A better idea is to print an error to klog.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists