On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:34:32AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > + st = acpi_get_table(ACPI_SIG_TPM2, 1,
> > + (struct acpi_table_header **) &tbl);
> > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(st) || tbl->header.length < sizeof(*tbl)) {
> > + dev_err(&acpi_dev->dev,
> > + FW_BUG "failed to get TPM2 ACPI table\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (tbl->start_method != ACPI_TPM2_MEMORY_MAPPED)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resources);
> > @@ -996,6 +978,12 @@ static int tpm_tis_acpi_init(struct acpi_device
> > *acpi_dev)
> >
> > acpi_dev_free_resource_list(&resources);
> >
> > + if (tpm_info.start == 0 && tpm_info.len == 0) {
> > + dev_err(&acpi_dev->dev,
> > + FW_BUG "TPM2 ACPI table does not define a memory
> > resource\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
>
> I guess this the only relevant change in this patch? You should propose
> removal of is_fifo() as a separate patch if that makes sense. This patch
> is now doing orthogonal things.
No, the return code changes are relevant too, and are why is_fifo was
best un-inlined.
The patch is fixing all the ACPI data validatation in one go, not just
the resource range, the description notes this.
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
