Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262763AbVDHUII (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:08:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262898AbVDHUII (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:08:08 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:29585 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262763AbVDHUHz (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:07:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add TPM hardware enablement driver From: Kylene Jo Hall To: Greg KH Cc: Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1112717690.7713.23.camel@jo.austin.ibm.com> References: <1110415321526@kroah.com> <422FC42B.7@pobox.com> <4240CE30.2060105@pobox.com> <20050324063933.GC10355@kroah.com> <42432B59.70003@pobox.com> <20050324213302.GA26729@kroah.com> <1112717690.7713.23.camel@jo.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:07:34 -0500 Message-Id: <1112990855.4573.4.camel@dyn95395164> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3902 Lines: 88 On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:14 -0500, Kylene Jo Hall wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 13:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 04:04:25PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Greg KH wrote: > > > >On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:02:24PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > > > > >>Kylene Hall wrote: > > > >> > > > >>>>what is the purpose of this pci_dev_get/put? attempting to prevent > > > >>>>hotplug or > > > >>>>something? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>Seems that since there is a refernce to the device in the chip structure > > > >>>and I am making the file private data pointer point to that chip > > > >>>structure this is another reference that must be accounted for. If you > > > >>>remove it with it open and attempt read or write bad things will happen. > > > >>>This isn't really hotpluggable either as the TPM is on the motherboard. > > > >> > > > >>My point was that there will always be a reference -anyway-, AFAICS. > > > >>There is a pci_dev reference assigned to the pci_driver when the PCI > > > >>driver is loaded, and all uses by the TPM generic code of this pointer > > > >>are -inside- the pci_driver's pci_dev object lifetime. > > > > > > > > > > > >Think of the following situation: > > > > - driver is bound to device. > > > > - userspace opens char dev node. > > > > - device is removed from the system (using fakephp I can do this > > > > to _any_ pci device, even if it is on the motherboard.) > > > > - userspace writes to char dev node > > > > - driver attempts to access pci device structure that is no > > > > longer present in memory. > > > > > > > >Because of this open needs to get a reference to the pci device to > > > >prevent oopses, or the driver needs to be aware of "device is now gone" > > > >in some other manner. > > > > > > Thanks for explaining; agreed. > > > > > > However, there appear to still be massive bugs in this area: > > > > > > Consider the behavior of the chrdev if a PCI device has been > > > unplugged. It's still actively messing with the non-existent > > > hardware, and never checks for dead h/w AFAICS. > > > > I agree, the driver should be fixed to handle this properly. > > > Basically, what I need to figure out is how to solve both issues simultaneously. I need to not register a pci_driver as I would be taking over an ID that is not unique to my device as well as get the hotplugging correct (which i don't know how to do with out a pci_remove function). Thanks, > I have now played with the fakephp driver and have a better > understanding of these interactions, but I still have questions. With > the current structure there is a problem because everything is > "cleaned-up" with the tpm_remove function even if userspace has the > device open when the tpm's slot is removed and then there are problems > on subsequent reads/writes. The get/put didn't really stop this from > happening. Is it right to fix this by cleaning mostly up and placing a > flag in the read/write path to check for this condition? > > This problem actually becomes more complicated. Since the TPM lives on > the LPC bus and does not have it's own id we were in the process of > converting the driver to not use a pci_driver structure at all like the > example in drivers/char/watchdog/i8xx_tco.c. This is desirable so that > the driver does not claim the id and other drivers can still find their > devices that also live on the LPC bus and thus share the same ID. > Without a pci_driver structure there is no probe or remove functions and > thus the driver is not alerted of the loss of hardware. Any > recommendations of how to handle this situation? > > Thanks, > Kylie > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/