RE: [PATCH] tpm: tpm_crb: relinquish locality on error path.

[Winkler, Tomas]

> 
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 06:42:26AM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:04:01PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: tpm_crb: relinquish locality on error
> path.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 01:19:12PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 09:00 +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2018-04-07 at 19:12 +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In crb_map_io() function,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > __crb_request_locality() is called prior to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > crb_cmd_ready(), but if one of the consecutive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > function fails the flow bails out instead of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to relinquish
> > > > > > > locality.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch adds goto jump to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > __crb_relinquish_locality() on the error path.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 888d867df441 (tpm: cmd_ready command can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be issued only after granting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > locality)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 10 +++++++---
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c index
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 7f78482cd157..34fbc6cb097b
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -511,8 +511,10 @@ static int
> > > > > > > > > > > > > crb_map_io(struct acpi_device *device, struct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > crb_priv *priv,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	priv->regs_t = crb_map_res(dev, priv, &io_res,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > buf-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >control_address,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  				   sizeof(struct crb_regs_tail));
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -	if (IS_ERR(priv->regs_t))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -		return PTR_ERR(priv->regs_t);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +	if (IS_ERR(priv->regs_t)) {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +		ret = PTR_ERR(priv->regs_t);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +		goto out_relinquish_locality;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +	}
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	/*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	 * PTT HW bug w/a: wake up the device to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > access
> > > @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -520,7
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +522,7
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > static int crb_map_io(struct acpi_device
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *device, struct crb_priv *priv,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	 */
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	ret = crb_cmd_ready(dev, priv);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	if (ret)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -		return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +		goto out_relinquish_locality;
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	pa_high = ioread32(&priv->regs_t-
> > > >ctrl_cmd_pa_high);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	pa_low  =
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ioread32(&priv->regs_t->ctrl_cmd_pa_low);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -565,6 +567,8 @@ static int crb_map_io(struct
> > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_device *device, struct crb_priv *priv,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	crb_go_idle(dev, priv);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +out_relinquish_locality:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	__crb_relinquish_locality(dev, priv, 0);
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >  	return ret;
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, please just call it before returning in the error
> path.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can you please elaborate why, isn't the centralized
> > > > > > > > > > > exiting of functions preferred kernel coding style?
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.11/process/coding
> > > > > > > > > > > -sty
> > > > > > > > > > > le.h
> > > > > > > > > > > tml#
> > > > > > > > > > > cent
> > > > > > > > > > > ra
> > > > > > > > > > > lized-ex
> > > > > > > > > > > iting-of-functions
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You exit only from one location (not multiple) and not
> > > > > > > > > > from a nested context. Here you just add more
> > > > > > > > > > complexity by
> > > doing this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Where is the complexity ? I see it as a standard way of
> > > > > > > > > undoing on
> > > > > exit.
> > > > > > > > > Tomas
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jarkko, can you please respond.
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Tomas
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was away for Mon-Wed last week and did not work on TPM for
> > > > > > > Thu-
> > > Fri.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My earlier comment was incorrect as there are two locations
> > > > > > > to exit (not sure how I managed to overlook the patch that way).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus, I have only two very  minor requets:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Remove the extra newline (the last line addition in the patch).
> > > > > > Okay
> > > > > > > * Use just label named out as we have only one exception
> handler.
> > > > > > Cannot do that, as the bail out is prior to cmd_ready request
> > > > > > so there is no
> > > > > need for go_idle which is under out label.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll move on to testing, and if it it passes, I can do those
> > > > > > > updates
> > > myself.
> > > > > > Thanks,  I prefer to resend myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tomas
> > > > >
> > > > > Add my tested-by as it is cosmectic change, thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What change exactly? I had impression you've accepted the patch as is?
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Tomas
> > >
> > > Hmm... maybe there is some misunderstandig but I thought you were
> > > going to make the updates above yourself and send a revised patch.
> >
> >
> > Probably,  if I remember there were to mails going in asynchronous,
> > I've received your tested-by, the second I've sent this answer, so I thought
> you came to the conclusion that there is nothing to change in the patch
> yourself.
> > Frankly I've checked the patch and there are no even extra new lines in my
> version unless it has scrambled on the way.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tomas
> 
> The only thing was the label name. That is why I asked if I can change it by
> myself instead of you having to send a follow up patch. Did you send a new
> one? Did not find it from patchwork.

There is already one 'out' label in that function, what would you prefer for this new label name?
Thanks
Tomas