[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170511101646.556aoezp77wlcrw7@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:16:46 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix byte order related arithmetic inconsistency in
tpm_getcap()
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:41:15AM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > /Jarkko
>
> Arithmetic should work?
> let's try with 0x0080:
> in native order: 0x0080 + 0x0080 = 0x0100
> in reverse order: 0x8000 + 0x8000 = 0x0000 != swap16(0x0100)
>
> Or do I misunderstand what you mean by "arithmetic should work"?
>
> -- Luc Van Oostenryck
I was referring to the specific code snippet in tpm-interface.c.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists