Re: [PATCH] tpm: WARN_ONCE() -> pr_warn_once() in tpm_tis_status()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 05:33:17PM +0200, jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> An unexpected status from TPM chip is not irrecovable failure of the
> kernel. It's only undesirable situation. Thus, change the WARN_ONCE
> instance inside tpm_tis_status() to pr_warn_once().
> 
> In addition: print the status in the log message because it is actually
> useful information lacking from the existing log message.
> 
> Suggested-by:  Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: 6f4f57f0b909 ("tpm: ibmvtpm: fix error return code in tpm_ibmvtpm_probe()")
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> index 431919d5f48a..21f67c6366cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static u8 tpm_tis_status(struct tpm_chip *chip)
>  		 * acquired.  Usually because tpm_try_get_ops() hasn't
>  		 * been called before doing a TPM operation.
>  		 */
> -		WARN_ONCE(1, "TPM returned invalid status\n");
> +		pr_warn_once("TPM returned invalid status: 0x%x\n", status);
>  		return 0;
>  	}

Actually in this case I don't understand why _once, especially based on
the comment.  Would ratelimited not be better?  So we can see if it
happens repeatedly?  Even better would be if we could see when it next
gave a valid status after an invalid one.



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Kernel Hardening]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux