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;
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:28:24 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To:     Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@intel.com>
Cc:     jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tpm: add support for partial reads
Message-ID: <20181119172824.GB16252@linux.intel.com>
References: <154239067364.2880.13752725056462237016.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <154239071144.2924.17574189056250189697.stgit@tstruk-mobl1.jf.intel.com>
 <20181118074832.GG5897@linux.intel.com>
 <90072f09-6388-b1f7-387b-42f056f8893d@intel.com>
 <20181119135800.GE8755@linux.intel.com>
 <b0efbbf8-6242-a48d-d984-b49d5fb20bb8@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b0efbbf8-6242-a48d-d984-b49d5fb20bb8@intel.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:44:49AM -0800, Tadeusz Struk wrote:
> On 11/19/18 5:58 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Please explain a scenario where "!ret_size" would no work given that
> > both size and partial_data have always positive value?
> 
> Right, I only looked at the one line above before responding.
> I'll change it to !ret_size
> 
> > 
> > I don't understand. In order to maintain backwards compatibility you can
> > send a new command at any time.
> 
> No, currently it is not possible to send a new command until the previous
> response is consumed. -EBUSY is returned if one sends a new command before
> reading the previous response (or at least part of it). See:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/char/tpm/tpm-dev-common.c#n128

Ah, you are correct.

You should add a boolean flag instead of introducing a new variable for
holding amount that has been read because obviously one read operation
is enough for backwards compatibility.

The code could read the code to data_pending and then set

   priv->data_read = false;

We do not need the original amount for anything.

/Jarkko