Wrong/strange TPM patches was Re: [PATCH 6.1 000/119] 6.1.31-rc1 review

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 6.1.31 release.
> There are 119 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.

> Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     tpm, tpm_tis: Avoid cache incoherency in test for interrupts

Description on this one is wrong/confused. There's no cache problem in
the code. Plus test_bit and friend already use bit number, so

-       bool itpm = priv->flags & TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND;
+       bool itpm = test_bit(TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND, &priv->flags);

@@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ enum tpm_tis_flags {
        TPM_TIS_ITPM_WORKAROUND         = BIT(0),
        TPM_TIS_INVALID_STATUS          = BIT(1),
        TPM_TIS_DEFAULT_CANCELLATION    = BIT(2),
+       TPM_TIS_IRQ_TESTED              = BIT(3),
 };

this enum needs to go from BIT() to raw numbers.

You can just do return tpm_pm_resume();

> Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     tpm: Prevent hwrng from activating during resume

@@ -429,6 +431,14 @@ int tpm_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
        if (chip == NULL)
                return -ENODEV;
 
+       chip->flags &= ~TPM_CHIP_FLAG_SUSPENDED;
+
+       /*
+        * Guarantee that SUSPENDED is written last, so that hwrng does not
+        * activate before the chip has been fully resumed.
+        */
+       wmb();
+
        return 0;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tpm_pm_resume);

This code is confused. First, either you don't need memory barriers
here, or you need real locking. Second, if you want to guarantee flags
are written last, you need to put the barrier before the
assignment. (But ... get rid of that confusion, first).

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,        Managing Director: Erika Unter
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature