Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm: do not ignore memblock_reserve return value

[Gregory Price]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:33:22PM +0100, Usama Arif wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30/08/2024 09:23, Gregory Price wrote:
> > tpm code currently ignores a relevant failure case silently.
> > Add an error to make this failure non-silent.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c | 6 +++++-
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> > index 9c3613e6af15..b6939a6d44d9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/tpm.c
> > @@ -61,7 +61,11 @@ int __init efi_tpm_eventlog_init(void)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	tbl_size = sizeof(*log_tbl) + log_tbl->size;
> > -	memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size);
> > +	if (memblock_reserve(efi.tpm_log, tbl_size)) {
> > +		pr_err("TPM Event Log memblock reserve fails 0x%lx - %x\n",
> > +		       efi.tpm_log, tbl_size);
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	if (efi.tpm_final_log == EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) {
> >  		pr_info("TPM Final Events table not present\n");
> 
> This was not a proper fix for the issue, sent a bit quickly!
> 
> I have sent it here https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240830212852.2794145-1-usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx/
> 

This change addresses a separately, discrete issue and the two
changes should be different patches (this is aside from the change
you posted being incorrect for v1_2).

~Gregory