On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:10:17PM -0800, J Freyensee wrote: > . > . > . > I'm new to this area of the kernel, but I'm not getting these lines: > > > + rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, NULL, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, 0, 0, NULL); > > + tpm_buf_destroy(&buf); > > if (rc < 0) > Why is this if() check not directly after the tpm_transmit_cmd() call that > sets rc? Is it correct you want to destroy buf regardless of the > tpm_transmit_cmd() outcome? > > return rc; > > - > > - if (be16_to_cpu(cmd.header.out.tag) == TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS) > > + out = (struct tpm_output_header *)buf.data; > > So buf has been destroyed, buf.data sill has something valid to assign to > out? > > + if (be16_to_cpu(out->tag) == TPM2_ST_NO_SESSIONS) > > chip->flags |= TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2; > > return 0; > Thanks, > Jay
Nope it is a regression in the patch. Thank you :-) tpm_buf_destroy() can be called if the response data is not needed other than everything went OK (tpm_transmit_cmd() already digs this info). /Jarkko
