linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/3] tpm_crb: use __le64 annotated variable for response buffer address

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:34:03 +0000
From:   "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        "Usyskin, Alexander" <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] tpm_crb: use __le64 annotated variable for response
 buffer address


> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 03:03:20PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 04, 2018 at 02:12:05PM +0200, Tomas Winkler wrote:
> > > This suppresses sparse warning
> > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c:558:18: warning: cast to restricted
> > > __le64
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/char/tpm/tpm_crb.c | 5 +++--
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > The guideline is that you should describe what is wrong rather than
> > copy-paste the sparse message.
> 
> Jason, didn't yo give the feedback to some patch 1-2 years ago that instead
> of copy-pasting parse error one should write a clear commit msg or is this
> OK?

I think you are reading wrongly the rule,  the title explains the issue and in addition 
I'm adding exact sparse warning. this is usually required. 
What is wrong is putting something like 'Fix sparse error' or "Fix warning' into patch subject. 
So the imperative here is 'adding annotation' and not a 'fixing a sparse message'.

Thanks
Tomas