Re: [PATCH v11 00/16] Remove nested TPM operations
From: Jarkko Sakkinen
Date: Fri Feb 08 2019 - 08:12:38 EST
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 07:22:48AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 2/8/19 6:50 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:14:54PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > chip->ops = NULL;
> > > up_write(&chip->ops_sem);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > index 02e8cffd1163..fcd845ad8c3c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> > > @@ -124,6 +124,8 @@ static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > void *buf, size_t bufsiz)
> > > dev_err(&chip->dev, "tpm_transmit: tpm_recv: error %d\n", rc);
> > > } else if (len < TPM_HEADER_SIZE || len != be32_to_cpu(header->length))
> > > rc = -EFAULT;
> > > + else
> > > + rc = 0;
> > Why is this needed?
> Because it holds a non-zero value, which is wrong at this point. Below it
> return rc ? rc : len;
> It will always return that rc and never 'len'.
> It's not just needed for bisecting. I still need it with your latest tree.
> That's the only change I need with my current testing of tpm_vtpm_proxy, TIS
> + TPM 1.2 , TIS + TPM 2.0 , and CRB + TPM 2.0 (with QEMU :-) ).
The code is unchaged. If there was a regression that would have been