lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix byte order related arithmetic inconsistency in tpm_getcap()
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:34:58PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:13:08AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 05:13:53PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 08:50:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > You should not do arithmetic with __be32 or __le32 types because
> > > > sometimes it results incorrect results. Calculations must be done only
> > > > with integers that are in in the CPU byte order. This commit migrates
> > > > tpm_getcap() to struct tpm_buf in order to sort out these issues.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Now this should work as Robertos patches move byte order conversion
> > > > where it should be. Sadly I'm out of reach to my Dell E6400 laptop
> > > > that I use for TPM 1.2 testing.
> > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 13 -------------
> > > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I've now tested this with TPM 1.2. Any complains?
> >
> > Seems reasonable, but which linke had the problematic arithmetic?
> >
> > Jason
>
> Arithmetic should work but it's not a good practice to do additions,
> substractions or multiplications in any other byte order than the CPU
> byte order.
>
> sparse also complains about this.

Can I get your Reviewed-by for this one?

/Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-15 13:36    [W:0.109 / U:3.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site