From: Sahil Rihan <srihan@fb.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@fb.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
Subject: Re: [Regression] TPM char device not created if TPM 1.2 is disabled, but visible
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 22:34:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7BE685E0-F107-4E1A-A9E1-72DCB58186AE@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1520334831.7549.5.camel@linux.intel.com>
> On 3/6/18, 3:14 AM, "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 19:28 +0000, Sahil Rihan wrote:
> > Agree on keeping the warning.
> >
> > I'm guessing you want to return -ENODEV from tpm_bios_log_setup. Doing it from
> > tpm_read_log_acpi will just fall through to calling tpm_read_log_of, which I
> > think will end up returning -EIO again.
> >
> > In terms of semantics I'm not sure if -ENODEV is the right return code if the
> > BIOS event log is absent. I guess you can claim it's some sort of "device". I
> > don’t have a strong opinion here.
> >
> > Sahil
>
> You are absolutely right. Printing warning and returning zero would be
> the right measure to take.
>
> One more cosmetic detail. Should the log level be info or warn? I mean
> as far as I'm concerned everything is in a legit state.
>
> /Jarkko
Yeah, I tend to agree. I think INFO should be fine.
My reasoning is as follows: if the TPM is disabled, you shouldn't really be checking/using the BIOS event log measurements anyway.
Sahil
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-07 22:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-03 21:27 [Regression] TPM char device not created if TPM 1.2 is disabled, but visible Sahil Rihan
2018-03-05 12:14 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-05 19:28 ` Sahil Rihan
2018-03-06 11:13 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-03-07 22:34 ` Sahil Rihan [this message]
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=7BE685E0-F107-4E1A-A9E1-72DCB58186AE@fb.com \
--to=srihan@fb.com \
--cc=ast@fb.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).