On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:06:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Added tpm2-sysfs.c that implements sysfs attributes for a TPM2
> device.
You need to document in Documentation every new sysfs that is added.
The existing ones are not documented :(
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c
> @@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ void tpm_remove_hardware(struct device *dev)
>
> tpm_chip_unregister(chip);
>
> +
> /* write it this way to be explicit (chip->dev == dev) */
> put_device(chip->dev);
> }
Hunk does not belong in this patch
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-commands.c
> b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-commands.c
> index a21dfd5..6365087 100644
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm2-commands.c
> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ ssize_t tpm2_get_tpm_pt(struct device *dev, u32
> property_id, u32* value,
> cmd.header.in = tpm2_get_tpm_pt_header;
> cmd.params.tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in.cap_id =
> cpu_to_be32(TPM2_CAP_TPM_PROPERTIES);
> - cmd.params.tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in.property_id = property_id;
> + cmd.params.tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in.property_id = cpu_to_be32(property_id);
> cmd.params.tpm2_get_tpm_pt_in.property_cnt = cpu_to_be32(1);
Hunk does not belong in this patch
> +static ssize_t pcrs_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
The pcrs file never conformed to the sysfs rules, if TPM2 is getting a
whole new file set, I wouldn't mind seeing it not include the
non-conformant ones. What do you think?
> +static ssize_t caps_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
Ditto.. The manfacturer number should probably be its own file
> +static ssize_t durations_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + if (chip->vendor.duration[TPM_LONG] == 0)
> + return 0;
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%d %d %d [%s]\n",
> + jiffies_to_usecs(chip->vendor.duration[TPM_SHORT]),
> + jiffies_to_usecs(chip->vendor.duration[TPM_MEDIUM]),
> + jiffies_to_usecs(chip->vendor.duration[TPM_LONG]),
> + chip->vendor.duration_adjusted
> + ? "adjusted" : "original");
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(durations);
Seem useless since the durations are constant, drop it?
> +static ssize_t timeouts_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%d %d %d %d [%s]\n",
> + jiffies_to_usecs(chip->vendor.timeout_a),
> + jiffies_to_usecs(chip->vendor.timeout_b),
> + jiffies_to_usecs(chip->vendor.timeout_c),
> + jiffies_to_usecs(chip->vendor.timeout_d),
> + chip->vendor.timeout_adjusted
> + ? "adjusted" : "original");
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(timeouts);
Ditto
> +static ssize_t version_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + char *str = buf;
> +
> + str += sprintf(str, "2.0\n");
> +
> + return str - buf;
> +}
> +
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(version);
> +
> +
> +static ssize_t tpm2_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> + char *buf)
> +{
> + struct tpm_chip *chip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> +
> + return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", chip->tpm2);
> +}
> +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(tpm2);
Two things for the same report? Drop one?
Also, I think some thought is needed for the char interface - some
kind of ioctl to enter TPM2 mode and EINVAL access until that is done?
Finally, this is in the wrong place in sysfs, I suspect it should be
attached to the char device node, not the platform device node? We
should at least investigate this...
> +struct tpm2_permanent {
> + unsigned int owner_auth_set : 1;
> + unsigned int endorsement_auth_set : 1;
> + unsigned int lockout_auth_set : 1;
> + unsigned int reserved1 : 5;
> + unsigned int disable_clear : 1;
> + unsigned int in_lockout : 1;
> + unsigned int tpm_generated_eps : 1;
> + unsigned int reserved2 : 21;
> +};
> +
> +struct tpm2_startup_clear {
> + unsigned int ph_enable : 1;
> + unsigned int sh_enable : 1;
> + unsigned int eh_enable : 1;
> + unsigned int ph_enable_nv : 1;
> + unsigned int reserved : 27;
> + unsigned int orderly : 1;
> +};
This idea is not portable, you cannot use bitfields to index bits in a
word like this. Please use constants defined with BIT(xx)
Next posting can you include a github link? Thanks
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/
