[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B94229743@hasmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:59:42 +0000
From: "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC: "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 v5] tpm: cmd_ready command can be issued only after
granting locality
>
> On Sun, 2018-02-25 at 14:00 +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > if (need_locality && chip->ops->relinquish_locality) {
> > - chip->ops->relinquish_locality(chip, chip->locality);
> > + /* this coud be on error path, don't override error code */
> > + int l_rc = chip->ops->relinquish_locality(chip, chip-
> > >locality);
> > +
> > + if (l_rc)
> > + dev_err(&chip->dev, "%s: relinquish_locality: error
> > %d\n",
> > + __func__, l_rc);
> > +
> > chip->locality = -1;
> > }
>
> The 'l_rc' declaration causes NAK as I've stated before.
I will provide a sixth version that let us both down the tree
>
> Why don't you just make a helper function:
>
> static void tpm_relinquish_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip) {
> int rc;
>
> if (!chip->ops->relinquish_locality)
> return 0;
>
> rc = chip->ops->relinquish_locality(chip);
> if (rc)
> dev_err(&chip->dev, "%s: error %d\n", __func__, rc);
>
> chip->locality = -1;
> }
>
> Then the original code would be simply:
>
> if (need_locality)
> tpm_relinquish_locality(chip);
>
> /Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists