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 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-01 20:51    [W:0.040 / U:2.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site