Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:11:02 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>, peterhuewe@gmx.de,
        stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lino Sanfilippo <l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: fix reference counting for struct tpm_chip
Message-ID: <YCvulinbuHWunTqD@kernel.org>
References: <1613435460-4377-1-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <1613435460-4377-2-git-send-email-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <20210216125342.GU4718@ziepe.ca>
 <YCvtF4qfG35tHM5e@kernel.org>
 <YCvuS9cIT7umOjhy@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YCvuS9cIT7umOjhy@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 06:09:50PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 06:04:42PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 08:53:42AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 01:31:00AM +0100, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > +static int tpm_add_tpm2_char_device(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > 
> > BTW, this naming is crap.
> > 
> > - 2x tpm
> > - char is useless
> > 
> > -> tpm2_add_device
> 
> Actually, tpm2s_add_device() add put it to tpm2-space.c.

No, tpms_add_device() :-)

(sorry)

/Jarkko

> 
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int rc;
> > > > +
> > > > +	device_initialize(&chip->devs);
> > > > +	chip->devs.parent = chip->dev.parent;
> > > > +	chip->devs.class = tpmrm_class;
> > > > +
> > > > +	rc = dev_set_name(&chip->devs, "tpmrm%d", chip->dev_num);
> > > > +	if (rc)
> > > > +		goto out_put_devs;
> > 
> > Right, and empty line missing here.
> > 
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * get extra reference on main device to hold on behalf of devs.
> > > > +	 * This holds the chip structure while cdevs is in use. The
> > > > +	 * corresponding put is in the tpm_devs_release.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	get_device(&chip->dev);
> > > > +	chip->devs.release = tpm_devs_release;
> > > > +	chip->devs.devt =
> > > > +		MKDEV(MAJOR(tpm_devt), chip->dev_num + TPM_NUM_DEVICES);
> > 
> > Isn't this less than 100 chars?
> > 
> > > > +	cdev_init(&chip->cdevs, &tpmrm_fops);
> > > > +	chip->cdevs.owner = THIS_MODULE;
> > > > +
> > > > +	rc = cdev_device_add(&chip->cdevs, &chip->devs);
> > > > +	if (rc) {
> > > > +		dev_err(&chip->devs,
> > > > +			"unable to cdev_device_add() %s, major %d, minor %d, err=%d\n",
> > > > +			dev_name(&chip->devs), MAJOR(chip->devs.devt),
> > > > +			MINOR(chip->devs.devt), rc);
> > > > +		goto out_put_devs;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +out_put_devs:
> > > > +	put_device(&chip->devs);
> > > 
> > > I'd rather you organize this so chip->devs.release and the get_device
> > > is always sent instead of having the possiblity for a put_device that
> > > doesn't call release
> > 
> > /Jarkko