On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 02:24:59PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> So here I'm to say I'm sorry for misleading this, after all the
> doubts I got back to debugging and traces. One thing for a reason
> moving the device_del, had really made the problem go away, but the
> real problem was
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 10:22:45AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:23:57PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > I think that they should be fenced then for the sake of consistency.
> > I do not see why sysfs code is privileged not to do fencing while other
> > peers have
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:27:41AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 01:02:34PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > I'll repeat my question: what worse can happen than returning -EPIPE? I
> > though the whole rw lock scheme was introduced just for this purpose.
>
> I
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:09:17PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> It could, but that patch was not merged yet, and I believe even if
> the issue is exposed only with runtime_pm currently, we have a bug
> in design even w/o runtime pm.
Please don't make changes without any justification :(
> >
>
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 07:48:59AM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > > down_write(>ops_sem);
> > > > chip->ops = NULL;
> > > > up_write(>ops_sem);
> > >
> > > No, that is wrong as well, another thread can issue a TPM command
> > > between the device_del and the ops = NULL. Presumably that
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 07:48:59AM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Make the driver uncallable first. The worst race that can happen
> > > > > > is that open("/dev/tpm0", ...) returns -EPIPE. I do not
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Make the driver uncallable first. The worst race that can happen
> > > > > is that open("/dev/tpm0", ...) returns -EPIPE. I do not consider
> > > > > this fatal at all.
> > > >
> > > > No responses for this
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:55:36PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >
> > > > Make the driver uncallable first. The worst race that can happen is
> > > > that open("/dev/tpm0", ...) returns -EPIPE. I do not consider this
> > >
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > > Make the driver uncallable first. The worst race that can happen is
> > > that open("/dev/tpm0", ...) returns -EPIPE. I do not consider this
> > > fatal at all.
> >
> > No responses for this reasonable proposal so I'll
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Make the driver uncallable first. The worst race that can happen is that
> > open("/dev/tpm0", ...) returns -EPIPE. I do not consider this fatal at
> > all.
>
> No responses for this reasonable proposal so I'll show what I
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 03:48:36PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 07:05:48AM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:24:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:17:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Sun,
>
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 03:42:25PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > > I've looked to the registration code and it indeed has few more
> > > issues
>
> ?
>
> > > Maybe TPM_CHIP_FLAG_REGISTERED can be used for sealing the access to
> > > the device during deregistration, current usage is
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 05:16:18PM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > > Please be more specific regarding flows you think will be wrong with
> > > this patch, you must agree that the current code is broken even w/o
> > > runtime pm.
> >
> > No, I don't agree. Accessing dev->name is OK after the
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 07:05:48AM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>
> > > This patch is wrong, I though the comments were clear. All entry
> > > points to find the device must be deleted before we commit to shutting
> down the device.
> > >
> > > You need to figure out some other way to solve
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 03:42:25PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > I've looked to the registration code and it indeed has few more issues
?
> > Maybe TPM_CHIP_FLAG_REGISTERED can be used for sealing the access
> > to the device during deregistration, current usage is void.
This is done via
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 07:05:48AM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > This patch is wrong, I though the comments were clear. All entry points to
> > find
> > the device must be deleted before we commit to shutting down the device.
> >
> > You need to figure out some other way to solve your
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 07:05:48AM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:24:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:17:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:39:31AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > > In
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 07:38:44AM +, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:24:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:17:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:39:31AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > > >
>
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:24:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:17:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:39:31AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > > In tpm_del_char_device device_del is called prior to
> > > > >
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:24:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:17:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:39:31AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > > In tpm_del_char_device device_del is called prior to tpm2_shutdown
> > > > where it
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:24:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:17:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:39:31AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > In tpm_del_char_device device_del is called
> > > prior to tpm2_shutdown where it is still
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:17:55PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 10:39:31AM +0300, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > In tpm_del_char_device device_del is called
> > prior to tpm2_shutdown where it is still used.
> >
> > Fortunately, so far chip->dev was used only for printouts
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
