On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:30:59PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:57:22PM -0400, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > + if (flags & TPM_TRANSMIT_LOCK) > > + mutex_lock(&chip->tpm_mutex); > > I think I would invert this. UNLOCKED is the exceptional case, so I'd > make the 0 flags lock. If we see UNLOCKED in the caller then we know > to audit for locking, 0 is much less obvious.
I'm fine with either way. > > @@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ 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, "loading blob", 0); > > All these points should accept a flags too and the caller should pass > in the TPM_TRASNMIT_UNLOCKED if it needs it.. For this bug fix it makes sense to implement it the way I did because it needs to be applied to multiple releases (I think I've underlined this in my changelog). If you think this is high priority, I can make the next revision into patch set of two patches. The second patch would implement the change you suggested. /Jarkko
