lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:01:06PM +0530, Nayna wrote:
>
>
> On 02/01/2017 02:20 AM, 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.
>
> Thanks Jarkko for explaining it.
>
> Hmm, do you want me to send a patch for this ?
> I think what we want is actually define it just array of size as 7.

No but please test my tree and check that it still works.

/Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-01 19:28    [W:0.065 / U:7.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site