On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:40:27PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 01:21:10PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:25:21PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 12:51:49PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 08:36:52AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > @@ -576,7 +576,8 @@ static int tpm2_load(struct tpm_chip *chip, > > > > > goto out; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > - rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, "loading > > > > > blob"); > > > > > + rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, > > > > > TPM_TRANSMIT_UNLOCKED, > > > > > + "loading blob"); > > > > > > > > I still don't like this, required mutex's should not be split outside > > > > the > > > > function that needs them without more a more obvious indication: > > > > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&chip->tpm_mutex); > > > > > rc = tpm2_load(chip, payload, options, &blob_handle); > > > > > if (rc) > > > > > - return rc; > > > > > > > > I recommend you stick with the idiom and do this: > > > > > > > > mutex_lock(&chip->tpm_mutex); > > > > rc = tpm2_load(chip, payload, options, &blob_handle, > > > > TPM_TRANSMIT_UNLOCKED); > > > > > > > > Which makes it easy to see we are doing it right everywhere. > > > > > > Why consume stack for unnecessary stuff? This is a static function. For > > > me this sounds like cutting hairs really. > > > > Well, tpm2_load looks like any other normal command that would grab > > the mutex, so something has to be done to indicate to the reader it is > > the unlocked version. > > > > I wouldn't worry about the stack, the compiler will inline that away > > anyhow. > > > > > One thing that would improve readability would be to rename internal > > > functions tpm2_load and tpm2_unseal to tpm2_load_cmd and tpm2_unseal_cmd > > > in order to underline that they are command wrappers and not to mix with > > > tpm2_unseal_trusted(). > > > > That seems reasonable as well, as long as all _cmd varients are unlocked. > > I think this more reasonable argument for your proposal than previous > ones for the flags parameter. Or maybe you had this argument in earlier > responses but I just failed to decipher it. > > I can buy this.
I fix the comments as well because they have some errors concerning return value and also do not match guidelines of [1] now that I'm at it. I will also add documentation comments for tpm2_unseal_cmd, tpm2_load_cmd and tpm2_flush_context_cmd. Do you think it is sufficient to say "Return: same as with tpm_transmit_cmd"? [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
