linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: move TPM_POLL_SLEEP from tpm_tis

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180301083740.GB29420@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 10:37:40 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterhuewe@....de,
        tpmdd@...horst.net, jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com,
        patrickc@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tpm: move TPM_POLL_SLEEP from tpm_tis_core.c to tpm.h

Hi

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 02:18:26PM -0500, Nayna Jain wrote:
> This patch moves TPM_POLL_SLEEP from tpm_tis_core.c to tpm.h, renaming
> it to TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL, to follow the existing enum naming
> conventions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

The cover letter is missing. Are this meant to be a patch set or
individual patches? I'll check these anyway.

> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h          |  3 ++-
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 10 ++--------
>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> index f895fba4e20d..7e797377e1eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h
> @@ -53,7 +53,8 @@ enum tpm_const {
>  enum tpm_timeout {
>  	TPM_TIMEOUT = 5,	/* msecs */
>  	TPM_TIMEOUT_RETRY = 100, /* msecs */
> -	TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US = 300	/* usecs */
> +	TPM_TIMEOUT_RANGE_US = 300,	/* usecs */

What is happening here?

> +	TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL = 1	/* msecs */
>  };
>  
>  /* TPM addresses */
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index 183a5f54d875..dc474e7244a6 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -31,12 +31,6 @@
>  #include "tpm.h"
>  #include "tpm_tis_core.h"
>  
> -/* This is a polling delay to check for status and burstcount.
> - * As per ddwg input, expectation is that status check and burstcount
> - * check should return within few usecs.
> - */
> -#define TPM_POLL_SLEEP	1  /* msec */
> -
>  static void tpm_tis_clkrun_enable(struct tpm_chip *chip, bool value);
>  
>  static bool wait_for_tpm_stat_cond(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
> @@ -90,7 +84,7 @@ static int wait_for_tpm_stat(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 mask,
>  		}
>  	} else {
>  		do {
> -			tpm_msleep(TPM_POLL_SLEEP);
> +			tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
>  			status = chip->ops->status(chip);
>  			if ((status & mask) == mask)
>  				return 0;
> @@ -232,7 +226,7 @@ static int get_burstcount(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>  		burstcnt = (value >> 8) & 0xFFFF;
>  		if (burstcnt)
>  			return burstcnt;
> -		tpm_msleep(TPM_POLL_SLEEP);
> +		tpm_msleep(TPM_TIMEOUT_POLL);
>  	} while (time_before(jiffies, stop));
>  	return -EBUSY;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.13.3
> 

Otherwise, looks fine.

/Jarkko