linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix tpm_bios_log

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56E9B178.9020300@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:18:16 -0400
From:	Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
	Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
	"Hon Ching (Vicky) Lo" <honclo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix tpm_bios_log_setup stub prototype

On 03/16/2016 01:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:13:41PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:19:48AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> A cleanup patch changed the prototype of the regular tpm_bios_log_setup
>>> function, but not that of the stub that is used when the TPM is disabled,
>>> causing a harmless build warning:
>>>
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c: In function 'tpm1_chip_register':
>>> drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c:287:38: error: passing argument 1 of 'tpm_bios_log_setup' discards 'const' qualifier from pointer target type [-Werror=discarded-qualifiers]
>>>    chip->bios_dir = tpm_bios_log_setup(dev_name(&chip->dev));
>>> In file included from ../drivers/char/tpm/tpm-chip.c:30:0:
>>> ../drivers/char/tpm/tpm_eventlog.h:83:31: note: expected 'char *' but argument is of type 'const char *'
>>>   static inline struct dentry **tpm_bios_log_setup(char *name)
>>>
>>> This changes the stub function to match the normal prototype,
>>> avoiding that warning.
>> Good catch. Thank you.
> The weird thing is I already applied this hunk to the patch, an
> autobuilder found it, it is right in my personal tree..
>
> Unclear where it got dropped? Are we missing anything else in that
> series? Stephen?

If I lost it, I certainly did not drop it intentionately.

    Stefan