[PATCH v2] tpm_crb: request and relinquish locality 0
flat view
From: Jason Gunthorpe <hidden>
Date: 2017-03-13 16:36:54
Also in:
lkml
On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
Added two new callbacks to struct tpm_class_ops: - request_locality - relinquish_locality These are called before sending and receiving data from the TPM. We update also tpm_tis_core to use these callbacks. Small modification to request_locality() is done so that it returns -EBUSY instead of locality number when check_locality() fails.
Make sense I think you may as well do the other two drivers, even though you can't run them the transformation looks safe enough to me.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <redacted> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 9 +++++++++ drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 12 ++++-------- include/linux/tpm.h | 3 ++- 4 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c index e38c792..9c56581 100644 +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c@@ -407,6 +407,12 @@ ssize_t tpm_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, struct tpm_space *space, if (chip->dev.parent) pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->dev.parent); + if (chip->ops->request_locality) { + rc = chip->ops->request_locality(chip, 0); + if (rc) + goto out;
If request_locality fails we probably shouldn't call relinquish_locality on the unwind path.. I think you should also put a relinquish_locality inside tpm_remove ?
+ int (*request_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc); + void (*relinquish_locality)(struct tpm_chip *chip, int loc, bool force);
Let us document what force is supposed to do... I'm not sure why we have it? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html