Re: [PATCH] TPM: integrity fix

From: Serge E. Hallyn
Date: Thu Feb 05 2009 - 10:34:19 EST


Quoting Rajiv Andrade (srajiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> Fix to function which is called by IMA, now tpm_chip_find_get() considers the case in which the machine doesn't have a TPM or, if it has, its TPM isn't enabled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Is this to fix James' problem with IMA on bootup?

Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
> drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c
> index 0387965..912a473 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm.c
> @@ -666,18 +666,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_show_temp_deactivated);
> */
> static struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(int chip_num)
> {
> - struct tpm_chip *pos;
> + struct tpm_chip *pos, *chip = NULL;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, &tpm_chip_list, list) {

Crap I even paused for a second when I reviewed the original
patch. I think the conversation in my head went something like
"but will pos be NULL at the end of the loop?" "Oh, it must". gah.

> if (chip_num != TPM_ANY_NUM && chip_num != pos->dev_num)
> continue;
>
> - if (try_module_get(pos->dev->driver->owner))
> + if (try_module_get(pos->dev->driver->owner)) {
> + chip = pos;
> break;
> + }
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> - return pos;
> + return chip;
> }
>
> #define TPM_ORDINAL_PCRREAD cpu_to_be32(21)
> --
> 1.5.6.3
--
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/