Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] tpm: add support for nonblocking operation
To:     J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>,
        jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com
Cc:     jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <152882630662.30206.8805136953394285180.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <152882631679.30206.9516257862583104447.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <f2ed324e-8512-5ac1-7e5b-29943bbace53@gmail.com>
From:   Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=tadeusz.struk@intel.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsDiBEiLICMRBADteQacQxypsuFvAw6IwYzbD8pgQi+kLYBcqfGgVAUN/cO+sLl6u1lVdaDB
 fhAArdbV9lpoqcWnmhQFTb4A+W569EpydBr6nuatWkEB+fmmx8YoUtuZfXt7v+1l1rc09kaW
 LY+TkwQkvFCeuvdasgmBLnmRWymEGWi1E12hUgTw/wCgtK24geC7XkiuANMv0gpr+raOgQMD
 /2yJZ0SeXQApWyTRaeIYN8GgYHZTWuBp/ofN+viEkhrDxahcaGPP5B/Nv6VS1+M0e5m8OzHj
 qPUbgfyOeJcslC5aoZdqqqzVWVLaA/+Jy+O+6T3k3R/IryVVATldBlwnGFDhET0mKQsd15zt
 cIdQBBbfSFR5VlugZuWV5q442IpPA/4g7nen9FFPxh45Te8D54hAsOCywjm6xUE0UJGYHeJ/
 MXCPtuXfVCbYcOxZVH7kUS2Vtk5d3bF40IE2WnVq1ZScNANF4ZjikxYhYGfNWX3HXak1gSoj
 UrY87rMSjPIAry4L0BoIx2qgL/k4iV/3QcXL4t5wosU0iw++suf1zGGcKM0gVGFkZXVzeiBT
 dHJ1ayA8dHN0cnVrQGdtYWlsLmNvbT7CYwQTEQIAIwIbAwYLCQgHAwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4B
 AheABQJQTjJTAhkBAAoJEDFswfskq9xyqvcAoI2nsaUCX8ZGbu+Jhq+++qlBFJ2rAJ983RoO
 R2ofHhn3g3Qi4K34tw0l087BTQRauzUlARAAqkWRL/InEPnoGMg/gw/CRaDBaIBgMsvIcghI
 7xevIzpleXt6jKHghSBooH+zaT7qi4u2gkgPn4odsER3Rm94XgrZJgoqls6EpKMWpJNGP4HT
 eYgykhfsZOLX8ijUbjTM/Sm/dZVo6aYoBL2+ciJwyl+Zt3Mp6un3/GWu6cA9005V50pRqO7j
 PTlVCHi2bedcEEf5DDsYJv/3Oz8/4LpSf6BL6BltjeZVa2y03dTMmD031JTH+OuyJm1yh72Z
 HWxhlYNXOv6uFJJVr+paQjrAsBVIYKhK24bD+uGJxLm8AN9i7/Si+2YeSsXvKUhk9mIoFBnU
 VFo63cziRTcpRu/kXgDAbujwN88qytEcvhEZHS6B9vdws+lhTpolEjkLCkz0Y59z4Fs9srKy
 QkRN+wtdiLgrwyDW3ryAKxcDmOumGWebDxpaOI/pBhrlS93HmDlvj7JmgTUU4a/NhwI3dXh5
 pn8FZzZyVXe3Kc3bu5T3UAC7uztinsAvCJQS6jGZWrXmXkqYkaLXQOw61eInWjr01zE/zDbE
 mdJPM0+va/gtZx9TtGxr4PpjbqswqCiubLDZXZHh5uqArPv/i+E8aXIsNSTN6Rrqs1j9YgDN
 ALksibv6+tXH3sOlCUgjuZgJH3+s/mnaAtiV2rZ/WlH15d6nd0uiDSZrKhlR+g4NHMh1ztEA
 EQEAAcJPBBgRAgAPBQJauzUlAhsMBQkJZgGAAAoJEDFswfskq9xyfv8AoI8aPrJCoM0h5WOP
 kKxMmPEPHzUNAJ9jBBYXhX1CWg+IhI7i/fLlI0vwCA==
Message-ID: <c6ea057d-5818-7c3b-09c6-329856736941@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:05:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f2ed324e-8512-5ac1-7e5b-29943bbace53@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 06/13/2018 10:55 AM, J Freyensee wrote:
>> +    /*
>> +     * If in nonblocking mode schedule an async job to send
>> +     * the command return the size.
>> +     * In case of error the err code will be returned in
>> +     * the subsequent read call.
>> +     */
>> +    if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) {
>> +        queue_work(tpm_dev_wq, &priv->async_work);
>> +        return size;
> 
> Apologies for the question, but should there be a mutex_unlock() here?  It's about the only return statement I am seeing where I cannot tell if a mutex_unlock() will be called before return or is needed before return.  The rest of the code is pretty obvious the return statements are being re-factored to an out: block where the mutex_unlock() will always be called before returning.

Hi Jay,
We need to hold the lock until the whole command is sent and the device is ready for next one.
In case of the async job the mutex in unlocked in tpm_async_work() just after the tpm_transmit() returns.
Thanks for reviewing.
-- 
Tadeusz