From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
David Safford <safford@us.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: use struct tpm_chip for tpm_chip_find_get()
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:46:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171025194633.GB998@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171025193452.d4qa4dhacfgqejk7@linux.intel.com>
> struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(u64 id)
> {
> struct tpm_chup *chip;
> struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
> int chip_num = 0;
> int chip_prev;
>
> mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
>
> do {
> chip_prev = chip_num;
>
> chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
>
> if (chip && (!id || id = chip->id) && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
> res = chip;
> break;
> }
> } while (chip_prev != chip_num);
>
> mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
>
> return res;
> }
?? The old version was correct, idr_find_slowpath is better than an
idr_get_next serach if you already know id.
PrasannaKumar's solution seems right, if we already have chip, then we
just need to lock it again:
struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(struct tpm_chip *chip)
{
struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
if (!chip) {
int chip_num = 0;
int chip_prev;
do {
chip_prev = chip_num;
chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
if (chip && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
res = chip;
break;
}
} while (chip_prev != chip_num);
} else {
if (!tpm_try_get_ops(chip))
res = chip;
}
mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
return res;
}
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
David Safford <safford@us.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: use struct tpm_chip for tpm_chip_find_get()
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:46:33 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171025194633.GB998@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171025193452.d4qa4dhacfgqejk7@linux.intel.com>
> struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(u64 id)
> {
> struct tpm_chup *chip;
> struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
> int chip_num = 0;
> int chip_prev;
>
> mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
>
> do {
> chip_prev = chip_num;
>
> chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
>
> if (chip && (!id || id == chip->id) && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
> res = chip;
> break;
> }
> } while (chip_prev != chip_num);
>
> mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
>
> return res;
> }
?? The old version was correct, idr_find_slowpath is better than an
idr_get_next serach if you already know id.
PrasannaKumar's solution seems right, if we already have chip, then we
just need to lock it again:
struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(struct tpm_chip *chip)
{
struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
if (!chip) {
int chip_num = 0;
int chip_prev;
do {
chip_prev = chip_num;
chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
if (chip && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
res = chip;
break;
}
} while (chip_prev != chip_num);
} else {
if (!tpm_try_get_ops(chip))
res = chip;
}
mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
return res;
}
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
David Safford <safford@us.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE (IMA)"
<linux-ima-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE (IMA)"
<linux-ima-user@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: use struct tpm_chip for tpm_chip_find_get()
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:46:33 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171025194633.GB998@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171025193452.d4qa4dhacfgqejk7@linux.intel.com>
> struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(u64 id)
> {
> struct tpm_chup *chip;
> struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
> int chip_num = 0;
> int chip_prev;
>
> mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
>
> do {
> chip_prev = chip_num;
>
> chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
>
> if (chip && (!id || id == chip->id) && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
> res = chip;
> break;
> }
> } while (chip_prev != chip_num);
>
> mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
>
> return res;
> }
?? The old version was correct, idr_find_slowpath is better than an
idr_get_next serach if you already know id.
PrasannaKumar's solution seems right, if we already have chip, then we
just need to lock it again:
struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(struct tpm_chip *chip)
{
struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
if (!chip) {
int chip_num = 0;
int chip_prev;
do {
chip_prev = chip_num;
chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
if (chip && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
res = chip;
break;
}
} while (chip_prev != chip_num);
} else {
if (!tpm_try_get_ops(chip))
res = chip;
}
mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
return res;
}
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com (Jason Gunthorpe)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] tpm: use struct tpm_chip for tpm_chip_find_get()
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:46:33 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171025194633.GB998@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171025193452.d4qa4dhacfgqejk7@linux.intel.com>
> struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(u64 id)
> {
> struct tpm_chup *chip;
> struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
> int chip_num = 0;
> int chip_prev;
>
> mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
>
> do {
> chip_prev = chip_num;
>
> chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
>
> if (chip && (!id || id == chip->id) && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
> res = chip;
> break;
> }
> } while (chip_prev != chip_num);
>
> mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
>
> return res;
> }
?? The old version was correct, idr_find_slowpath is better than an
idr_get_next serach if you already know id.
PrasannaKumar's solution seems right, if we already have chip, then we
just need to lock it again:
struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(struct tpm_chip *chip)
{
struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
if (!chip) {
int chip_num = 0;
int chip_prev;
do {
chip_prev = chip_num;
chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
if (chip && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
res = chip;
break;
}
} while (chip_prev != chip_num);
} else {
if (!tpm_try_get_ops(chip))
res = chip;
}
mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
return res;
}
Jason
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan <prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com>,
linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
David Safford <safford@us.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@redhat.com>,
"open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE"
<linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER"
<tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: use struct tpm_chip for tpm_chip_find_get()
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 13:46:33 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171025194633.GB998@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171025193452.d4qa4dhacfgqejk7@linux.intel.com>
> struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(u64 id)
> {
> struct tpm_chup *chip;
> struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
> int chip_num = 0;
> int chip_prev;
>
> mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
>
> do {
> chip_prev = chip_num;
>
> chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
>
> if (chip && (!id || id == chip->id) && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
> res = chip;
> break;
> }
> } while (chip_prev != chip_num);
>
> mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
>
> return res;
> }
?? The old version was correct, idr_find_slowpath is better than an
idr_get_next serach if you already know id.
PrasannaKumar's solution seems right, if we already have chip, then we
just need to lock it again:
struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(struct tpm_chip *chip)
{
struct tpm_chip *res = NULL;
mutex_lock(&idr_lock);
if (!chip) {
int chip_num = 0;
int chip_prev;
do {
chip_prev = chip_num;
chip = idr_get_next(&dev_nums_idr, &chip_num);
if (chip && !tpm_try_get_ops(chip)) {
res = chip;
break;
}
} while (chip_prev != chip_num);
} else {
if (!tpm_try_get_ops(chip))
res = chip;
}
mutex_unlock(&idr_lock);
return res;
}
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-25 19:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-25 11:55 [PATCH v2] tpm: use struct tpm_chip for tpm_chip_find_get() Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 11:55 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 15:10 ` PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
2017-10-25 15:22 ` PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
2017-10-25 15:10 ` PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
2017-10-25 15:10 ` PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
2017-10-25 15:10 ` PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
2017-10-25 19:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 19:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 19:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 19:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 19:34 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 19:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2017-10-25 19:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 19:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 19:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 19:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 20:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 20:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 20:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 20:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 20:07 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
[not found] ` <20171025200746.svsraubdotjyzt2i-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
2017-10-25 20:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 20:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 20:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 20:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 20:17 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-26 10:54 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-26 10:54 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-26 10:54 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-26 10:54 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-26 10:54 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2017-10-25 15:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 15:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 15:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2017-10-25 15:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171025194633.GB998@obsidianresearch.com \
--to=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jsnitsel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=prasannatsmkumar@gmail.com \
--cc=safford@us.ibm.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tpmdd@selhorst.net \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.