linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] tpm: Get rid of chip->pdev

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20160214052414.GB8065@intel.com>
Date:	Sun, 14 Feb 2016 07:24:14 +0200
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc:	Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] tpm: Get rid of chip->pdev

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:33:20PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 08:31:21PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > I'll send you something else that might work for vtpm...'
> > 
> > The vtpm driver will introduce chip->priv, which will point to vtpm_dev. For
> > this reason we need to hold a reference to the vtpm_dev->dev in the
> > front end.
> 
> This should take care of it for all drivers including vtpm.
> 
> https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/commits/for-jarkko
> 
> At the very least this turns silent use after free into a null pointer
> oops.
> 
> We should also discuss if we want to continue to have the driver
> module locked while /dev/tpmX is open, that is no longer needed for
> corectness.

I'm happy the patch that was sent before although I didn't give it
Reviewed-by because it had couple of style errors. If those two
style errors are the *only* issues I can fix up them.

Unless the differences are trivial (like a missing return value or
couple of minor style errors something very obvious) for me to fixup I'd
hope to re-review the code.

I'm not trying to be difficult here. For small errors I can amend
the commits but it seems that there was something more non-trival
done

Other than the first patch (for which I'm still waiting a clear
explanation why it is wrong), these are not going to 4.5 anyway so
there's lots time to things the long way.

/Jarkko