From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757575Ab2DYJl5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:57 -0400 Received: from cpsmtpb-ews02.kpnxchange.com ([213.75.39.5]:4699 "EHLO cpsmtpb-ews02.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756881Ab2DYJl4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2012 05:41:56 -0400 Message-ID: <1335346910.1611.9.camel@t41.thuisdomein> Subject: Re: [PATCH] TPM: chip disabled state erronously being reported as error From: Paul Bolle To: Rajiv Andrade Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:41:50 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20120424205717.GA3755@localhost> References: <20120424205717.GA3755@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.0.1 (3.4.0.1-1.fc18) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2012 09:41:50.0424 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3B8B580:01CD22C7] X-RcptDomain: vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rajiv, On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 17:57 -0300, Rajiv Andrade wrote: > Can you test it? Sure. Your patch applied cleanly to the current Fedora 16 kernel's sources (ie, kernel-3.3.2-6.fc16). One boot and one suspend-and-resume cycle both were without the error message that bothered me so much. That should be all testing that this patch needs, shouldn't it? > tpm_do_selftest() attempts to read a PCR in order to > decide if one can rely on the TPM being used or not. > The function that's used by __tpm_pcr_read() does not > expect the TPM to be disabled or deactivated, and if so, > reports an error. > > It's fine if the TPM returns this error when trying to > use it for the first time after a power cycle, but it's > definitely not if it already returned success for a > previous attempt to read one of its PCRs. > > The tpm_do_selftest() was modified so that the driver only > reports this return code as an error when it really is. > > Reported-by: Paul Bolle I guess that is now "Reported-and-tested-by", even though the test was run against a v3.3.2 based kernel. > Signed-off-by: Rajiv Andrade Should this be CC-ed to stable for v3.3? Paul Bolle