Re: [PATCH] - TPM save state before suspending to ram

[Pavel Machek]

On Thu 2008-01-03 21:44:15, Marcel Selhorst wrote:
> Dear list,
> 
> this patch fixes a bug, that prevents the TPM chip to resume correctly from a
> suspended state.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcel Selhorst <tpm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> --- linux-tpm/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c	2008-01-03 20:44:43.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c	2008-01-03 21:08:13.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1041,7 +1041,7 @@ void tpm_remove_hardware(struct device *
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_remove_hardware);
> 
> -static u8 savestate[] = {
> +static const u8 savestate[] = {
>  	0, 193,			/* TPM_TAG_RQU_COMMAND */
>  	0, 0, 0, 10,		/* blob length (in bytes) */
>  	0, 0, 0, 152		/* TPM_ORD_SaveState */
> @@ -1053,11 +1053,13 @@ static u8 savestate[] = {
>   */
>  int tpm_pm_suspend(struct device *dev, pm_message_t pm_state)
>  {
> +	u8 data[max_t(int, max(ARRAY_SIZE(savestate), ARRAY_SIZE(savestate)), 10)];
>  	struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>  	if (chip == NULL)
>  		return -ENODEV;
> 
> -	tpm_transmit(chip, savestate, sizeof(savestate));
> +	memcpy(data, savestate, sizeof(savestate));
> +	tpm_transmit(chip, data, sizeof(data));
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_pm_suspend);

I'm not sure if we want to use variable-size array on stack. What
hacks are you doing with max_t/max?
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/