[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210228093230.5676-1-dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:32:30 +0800
From: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>
To: dinghao.liu@....edu.cn, kjlu@....edu
Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] tpm: Add missing check in tpm_inf_recv
The use of wait() in tpm_inf_recv() is almost the same. It's odd that
we only check the return value and terminate execution flow of one call.
Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>
---
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c
index 9c924a1440a9..abe00f45aa45 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_infineon.c
@@ -263,7 +263,9 @@ static int tpm_inf_recv(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 * buf, size_t count)
size = ((buf[2] << 8) | buf[3]);
for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
- wait(chip, STAT_RDA);
+ ret = wait(chip, STAT_RDA);
+ if (ret)
+ return -EIO;
buf[i] = tpm_data_in(RDFIFO);
}
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists