Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Feb 2017 20:27:57 +0200 | From | Jarkko Sakkinen <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |