linux-kernel - Re: [Regression] TPM char device not created if TPM 1.2 is disabled, but visible

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: <1520334831.7549.5.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:13:51 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sahil Rihan <srihan@...com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Subject: Re: [Regression] TPM char device not created if TPM 1.2 is
 disabled, but visible

On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 19:28 +0000, Sahil Rihan wrote:
> Agree on keeping the warning. 
> 
> I'm guessing you want to return -ENODEV from tpm_bios_log_setup. Doing it from
> tpm_read_log_acpi will just fall through to calling tpm_read_log_of, which I
> think will end up returning -EIO again.
> 
> In terms of semantics I'm not sure if -ENODEV is the right return code if the
> BIOS event log is absent. I guess you can claim it's some sort of "device". I
> don’t have a strong opinion here.
> 
> Sahil

You are absolutely right. Printing warning and returning zero would be
the right measure to take.

One more cosmetic detail. Should the log level be info or warn? I mean
as far as I'm concerned everything is in a legit state.

/Jarkko