Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 14:46:22 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
       Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
       James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
       Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>, safford@watson.ibm.com,
       serue@linux.vnet.ibm.com, sailer@watson.ibm.com, zohar@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] integrity: TPM internel kernel interface
Message-ID: <20080809184622.GA22905@infradead.org>
References: <20080808184349.999902616@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1218221718.4444.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1218221718.4444.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 673
Lines: 22

> +{
> +	struct tpm_chip *pos;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&driver_lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(pos, &tpm_chip_list, list) {
> +		if ((chip_num == TPM_ANY_NUM || pos->dev_num == chip_num)
> +		    && (chip_typ == TPM_ANY_TYPE)) {
> +			spin_unlock(&driver_lock);
> +			return pos;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	spin_unlock(&driver_lock);

besides the usual coding style issues, what protects the chip from going
away afer you dropped the lock?

--
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/