On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:51:27AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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.
Got you. I think I'm good with this patch. Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakki...@linux.intel.com> > Jason /Jarkko -- 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/