On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 4:32 AM Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:25:44AM -0700, Andrey Pronin wrote: > > > Why does not tpm_del_char_device need this? > > > > "Not" is a typo in the sentence above, right? tpm_del_char_device *does* > > need the fix. When tpm_class_shutdown is called it sets chip->ops to > > NULL. If tpm_del_char_device is called after that, it doesn't check if > > chip->ops is NULL (normal kernel API and char device API calls go > > through tpm_try_get_ops, but tpm_del_char_device doesn't) and proceeds to > > call tpm2_shutdown(), which tries sending the command and dereferences > > chip->ops. > > It's a typo, yes. Sorry about that. > > tpm_class_shutdown() is essentially tail of tpm_del_char_device(). > > To clean things up, I'd suggest dropping tpm_del_char_device() and > call tpm_class_shutdown() in tpm_chip_unregisters() along, and open > coding things that prepend it in tpm_del_char_device(). > Personally I would have preferred two separate patches, one to fix the immediate problem (with Cc: stable) and one for the cleanup, but I guess merging both into one is ok as long as it is marked for stable. Thanks, Guenter
