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

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

Message-ID: <20180306153936.GA13395@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Tue, 6 Mar 2018 08:39:36 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Tomas Winkler <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
        Alexander Usyskin <alexander.usyskin@...el.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tpm_crb: use __le64 annotated variable for response
 buffer address

On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:28:21AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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?

The standard is to give some explaination why the tool complaint is
valid and then if suitable include the tool complaint itself.

Eg bad:

Fix sparse warning on resp

Good:

use __le64 annotated variable for response buffer address

IMHO, the subject line sufficiently describes the patch, and it is
generally OK to clip the tool warning into the body..

Jason