On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 07:22:48AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 2/8/19 6:50 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 09:14:54PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > > > > > chip->ops = NULL; > > > up_write(&chip->ops_sem); > > > } > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > > b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > > index 02e8cffd1163..fcd845ad8c3c 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c > > > @@ -124,6 +124,8 @@ static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct tpm_chip *chip, > > > void *buf, size_t bufsiz) > > > dev_err(&chip->dev, "tpm_transmit: tpm_recv: error %d\n", rc); > > > } else if (len < TPM_HEADER_SIZE || len != be32_to_cpu(header->length)) > > > rc = -EFAULT; > > > + else > > > + rc = 0; > > Why is this needed? > > Because it holds a non-zero value, which is wrong at this point. Below it > is: > > return rc ? rc : len; > > It will always return that rc and never 'len'. > > It's not just needed for bisecting. I still need it with your latest tree. > That's the only change I need with my current testing of tpm_vtpm_proxy, TIS > + TPM 1.2 , TIS + TPM 2.0 , and CRB + TPM 2.0 (with QEMU :-) ). The code is unchaged. If there was a regression that would have been ages. /Jarkko
