On 11/12/2012 08:16 AM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 11/08/2012 10:39 AM, Corey Bryant wrote:
Thanks for your responses. I have a few comments below.
On 10/24/2012 02:46 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 09/27/2012 10:22 AM, Corey Bryant wrote:
On 06/04/2012 03:37 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
+ /* check for ongoing seize by a higher locality */
+ for (l = locty + 1; l < TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES;
l++) {
+ if ((tis->loc[l].access &
TPM_TIS_ACCESS_SEIZE)) {
+ break;
Were you intending to break from the for loop or the while?
Right. I am setting a flag here now to then leave the while loop.
Are you setting the flag or testing it? I'm not sure this code is
serving any purpose the way it is, since it is testing the flag and
then breaking from the for loop if it's on. That's why I was
wondering if you meant to break from the while loop instead.
Here's how the patch looks now:
+ if ((val & TPM_TIS_ACCESS_SEIZE)) {
+ /*
+ * allow seize if a locality is active and the requesting
+ * locality is higher than the one that's active
+ * OR
+ * allow seize for requesting locality if no locality is
+ * active
+ */
+ while ((TPM_TIS_IS_VALID_LOCTY(tis->active_locty) &&
+ locty > tis->active_locty) ||
+ !TPM_TIS_IS_VALID_LOCTY(tis->active_locty)) {
+ bool higher_seize = FALSE;
+
+ /* already a pending SEIZE ? */
+ if ((tis->loc[locty].access & TPM_TIS_ACCESS_SEIZE)) {
+ break;
+ }
+
+ /* check for ongoing seize by a higher locality */
+
for (l = locty + 1; l < TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES; l++) {
+ if ((tis->loc[l].access & TPM_TIS_ACCESS_SEIZE)) {
+ higher_seize = TRUE;
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+
+ if (higher_seize) {
+ break;
+ }
+
+ /* cancel any seize by a lower locality */
+ for (l = 0; l < locty - 1; l++) {
+ tis->loc[l].access &= ~TPM_TIS_ACCESS_SEIZE;
+ }
[...]
Ok that looks good.
--
Regards,
Corey Bryant
