From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: remove chip_num parameter from in-kernel API Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 11:46:37 -0600 Message-ID: <20171024174637.GB1806@obsidianresearch.com> References: <20171023123817.18559-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20171023163139.GA17394@obsidianresearch.com> <20171024154440.3jeupmus43jcgbbz@linux.intel.com> <20171024155526.GA32250@obsidianresearch.com> <20171024161118.GA348@obsidianresearch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org To: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen , Stefan Berger , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Herbert Xu , "open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE IMA" , Dmitry Kasatkin , open list , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, "moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" , "open list:KEYS-TRUSTED" , "open list:HARDWARE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR CORE" , James Morris , Matt Mackall open list:INTEGRITY MEASUREMENT ARCHITECTURE IMA List-Id: tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 09:44:30PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: > I am wondering why it is wrong. Isn't the chip id valid till it is > unregistered? If so the rfc is correct. Please explain, may be I am > missing something. The lifetime is a bit complicated, but the general rule in the kernel for things like this it to use pointers, not ids, and certainly not string ids. For that patch it could just use container_of to get the chip.. Jason