On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:30:59PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:57:22PM -0400, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

quoted

+     if (flags & TPM_TRANSMIT_LOCK)
+             mutex_lock(&chip->tpm_mutex);

I think I would invert this. UNLOCKED is the exceptional case, so I'd
make the 0 flags lock. If we see UNLOCKED in the caller then we know
to audit for locking, 0 is much less obvious.

I'm fine with either way.

quoted

@@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ static int tpm2_load(struct tpm_chip *chip,
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, "loading blob");
+	rc = __tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, "loading blob", 0);

All these points should accept a flags too and the caller should pass
in the TPM_TRASNMIT_UNLOCKED if it needs it..

For this bug fix it makes sense to implement it the way I did because it
needs to be applied to multiple releases (I think I've underlined this
in my changelog).

If you think this is high priority, I can make the next revision into
patch set of two patches. The second patch would implement the change
you suggested.

/Jarkko