Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1571936

Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:55:41AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/01/2017 08:24 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:48:37PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:50:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 12:14:12AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > > > > > I already sent my pull request to 4.11 and even today I found something
> > > > > > fishy. You declared a function local array by using a variable in "tpm:
> > > > > > enhance TPM 2.0 PCR extend to support multiple banks" (max_active_banks
> > > > > > or something). And the event log patches have just passed the review.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes. I have checked using clang and it has passed the clang.. and I also
> > > > > verified there were no complains during build.
> > > > 
> > > > What we can deduce from that is that they didn't expose the issue in
> > > > question.
> > > > 
> > > > I found this by running sparse with make C=2 M=drives/char/tpm
> > > > 
> > > > > What type of problem do you see ?
> > > > 
> > > > It is disallowed to do stack allocation in the kernel code even if C
> > > > standard would allow it. Stack is scarce resource so you need to know
> > > > its usage at compile time.
> > > > 
> > > > In this case you actually know the allocation because the value is not
> > > > changed during the course of the function but it is still bad. Probably
> > > > compiler will optimize it out. Still it is not a good practice.
> > > > 
> > > > > Also, to understand, this is related to multi-bank patchset. I mean how does
> > > > > it affect for event log patchset ?
> > > > 
> > > > Well in both cases these have landed fairly late but I asked from James
> > > > whether I'll have to postpone these to 4.12.
> > > > 
> > > > Usually when I've sent my release pull request I do not want to make any
> > > > radical changes to the codebase because they always require extra QA and
> > > > thus take extra time.
> > > 
> > > rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, tpm_buf_length(&buf), 0, 0,
> > > 		      "attempting extend a PCR value");
> > > 
> > > This should be
> > > 
> > > rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, 0, 0,
> > > 		      "attempting extend a PCR value");
> > > 
> > > The second parameter is the size of the buffer, not length of the input
> > > data.
> > > 
> > > /Jarkko
> > 
> > As a sanity check can you test these commits and see if they still
> > work for you as I've done now some updates to them? Thanks.
> 
> Thanks Jarkko, yes I tested for both multi-bank patches and event log.
> Its working fine.
> 
> Thanks & Regards,
>    - Nayna

OK, good, thanks.

/Jarkko

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-31 18:50 +0100
  Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-31 21:40 +0100
    Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - 2017-01-31 22:50 +0100
      Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-31 23:40 +0100
      Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-02-01 04:50 +0100
        Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-01 11:40 +0100
          Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-02-01 14:50 +0100
            Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-01 19:30 +0100
  Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-01-31 22:00 +0100
    Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-02-01 08:40 +0100
      Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-01 19:30 +0100
    Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-01 15:50 +0100
      Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-01 16:00 +0100
        Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-02-01 20:30 +0100
          Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-01 21:00 +0100
  Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs  support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log Nayna <nayna@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-01-31 22:00 +0100

csiph-web