On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:26:42PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:48:39PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:14:10PM -0600, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:49:42PM -0400, Nayna Jain wrote: > > > > Currently, the event log file operations are not serialized with > > > > tpm_chip_unregister(), which can possibly cause a race condition. > > > > > > > > This patch fixes the race condition by: > > > > - moving read_log() from fops to chip register. > > > > > > What is "chip register"? Please use exact names. > > > > > > > - disallowing event log file operations when chip unregister is in > > > > progress. > > > > > > Could you elaborate this sentence? > > > > > > > - guarding event log memory using chip krefs. > > > > > > Could you elaborate this sentence? > > > > > > Please describe how the race condition could happen and provide the > > > "Fixes:" line for the commit ID that caused it. Otherwise, your commit > > > message won't make any sense. I cannot apply this commit with this > > > commit message. > > > > > > The commit message does not make much sense... > > > > Lets get this moving along, it is hard to keep everything straight > > over months.. > > > > Nayna: This commit message should work: > > > > tpm: Have eventlog use the tpm_chip > > > > Move the backing memory for the eventlog into tpm_chip and push > > the tpm_chip into read_log. This optimizes read_log processing by > > only doing it once and prepares things for the next patches in the > > series which require the tpm_chip to locate the event log via > > ACPI and OF handles instead of searching. > > > > This is straightfoward except for the issue of passing a kref through > > i_private with securityfs. Since securityfs_remove does not have any > > removal fencing like sysfs we use the inode lock to safely get a > > kref on the tpm_chip. > > Perfect. Thank you. > > With this > > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> > > No need for resend.
There actually *is* need for one more resend because the patces were not CC'd to linux-security-module. I discussed about this at LPC with James Morris and his take was that *major* changes should be CC'd to linux-security-module. This is such a major set of changes. If this series is sent one more time with CC to linux-kernel and linux-security-module and the commit message is changed for this commit from my part it is ready for to be applied. You can add my Reviewed-by to this patch. /Jarkko ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi _______________________________________________ tpmdd-devel mailing list tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tpmdd-devel
