[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191115174329.GA22029@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:43:29 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-stable@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Bundy <christianbundy@...ction.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm_tis: turn on TPM before calling tpm_get_timeouts
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:56:29PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:55:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > Would it function with the timeout values set at the beginning of
> > > tpm_tis_core_init (max values)?
> >
> > tpm_get_timeouts() should be replaced with:
> >
> > if (tpm_chip_start()) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Could not get TPM timeouts and durations\n");
> > rc = -ENODEV;
> > goto out_err;
> > }
> >
> > tpm_stop_chip(chip);
> >
> > tpm_get_timeouts() is called by tpm_auto_startup(). Also the function
> > should be moved to tpm_chip.c and converted to a static function so
> > that it won't be called from random cal sites like above.
>
> Careful, the design here was to allow a driver to do only
> get_timeouts, then additional setup work, then do auto_startup()
>
> Forcing a driver to do auto_startup too early may not be good.
All drivers always do it anyway because all drivers always call
tpm_chip_register().
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists