Thanks, Jonathan!
On Fri, 2026-04-24 at 14:24 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> -static int __init init_ima(void)
> +static int __init init_ima(bool late)
> {
> int error;
>
> @@ -1247,10 +1247,26 @@ static int __init init_ima(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * If we found the TPM during our first attempt, or we know there's no
> + * TPM, nothing further to do
> + */
Perhaps it's just me, but the comment wording is a bit off. Could I change it
to: If we either found the TPM or knew there's no TPM during our first attempt,
nothing futher to do.
Otherwise the patch looks good.
Mimi
> + if (late && (ima_tpm_chip || !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TCG_TPM)))
> + return 0;
> +
> + ima_tpm_chip = tpm_default_chip();
> + if (!ima_tpm_chip && !late && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TCG_TPM)) {
> + pr_debug("TPM not available, will try later\n");
> + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> + }
> +
> + if (!ima_tpm_chip)
> + pr_info("No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass!\n");
> +
