Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <0094438d-cf8e-da81-c969-119f90baf3db@gmx.de>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 02:25:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 08/11] tpm, tpm: Implement usage counter for locality
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
Cc:     peterhuewe@gmx.de, jgg@ziepe.ca, stefanb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux@mniewoehner.de, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jandryuk@gmail.com,
        pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de, l.sanfilippo@kunbus.com,
        p.rosenberger@kunbus.com
References: <20221017235732.10145-1-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <20221017235732.10145-9-LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
 <20221018062508.GB25237@wunner.de> <Y1TQiIw0m+8BSzMs@kernel.org>
From:   Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <Y1TQiIw0m+8BSzMs@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


On 23.10.22 07:26, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 08:25:08AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 01:57:29AM +0200, Lino Sanfilippo wrote:
>>> Implement a usage counter for the (default) locality used by the TPM T=
IS
>>> driver:
>>> Request the locality from the TPM if it has not been claimed yet, othe=
rwise
>>> only increment the counter. Also release the locality if the counter i=
s 0
>>> otherwise only decrement the counter. Ensure thread-safety by protecti=
ng
>>> the counter with a mutex.
>>>
>>> This allows to request and release the locality from a thread and the
>>> interrupt handler at the same time without the danger to interfere wit=
h
>>> each other.
>> [...]
>>> +static int tpm_tis_release_locality(struct tpm_chip *chip, int l)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct tpm_tis_data *priv =3D dev_get_drvdata(&chip->dev);
>>>
>>> -	tpm_tis_write8(priv, TPM_ACCESS(l), TPM_ACCESS_ACTIVE_LOCALITY);
>>> +	mutex_lock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
>>> +	priv->locality_count--;
>>> +	if (priv->locality_count =3D=3D 0)
>>> +		tpm_tis_release_locality_locked(priv, l);
>>> +	mutex_unlock(&priv->locality_count_mutex);
>>>
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  }
>>
>> Hm, any reason not to use struct kref for the locality counter?
>> Provides correct memory ordering (no mutex needed) and allows for
>> calling a release function too upon reaching 0.
>
> I proposed for last version kref. I have no idea why this is still
> using mutex. And now I apparently have proposed rcu for the whole
> struct (forgot what I had put my feedback for earlier version).
>
> This keeps being confusing patch as the commit message does not
> really go to the bottom line why mutex is really the best possible
> choice here.
>


I actually tried to implement this via kref but then came to the
conclusion it is rather not a good choice for our case. Please
see my response to your former request to implement this via kref:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/09eefdab-f677-864a-99f7-869d7a8744c2@gmx.de/

Regards,
Lino