linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7] tpm: separate cmd_ready/go_idle from runtime

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: <5c50d7fa2bf495f26443bd2da2e15df34c3d23f7.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 19:42:24 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc:     "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>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] tpm: separate cmd_ready/go_idle from runtime_pm

On Tue, 2018-06-26 at 21:15 +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote:
> > Right now if I really put head into this I can understand the logic but it
> > is a
> > complete mess.
> 
> I think what is the mess is that we have a recursive call to tpm_transmit
> topped with retries.  All other mess is just the result of that.
> 
> > I will forgot the dependencies between flags within few
> > weeks. 
> 
> Hope the reasons are well documented both in code and the commit message, if
> not let's address that. We really cannot depend on one's memory.
> It's not like I'm not striving for simplest possible code. 
> 
> > A fixed requirement (so that you know) is that they must be
> > independent.
> 
> The flags (hope this what you referring here to) are not independent and
> weren't before, (RAW cannot be called alone as you will have double locking)
> putting them under one name just should make it clear. 
> I beg you to go over the  code one more time, don't get stuck with flags
> names, maybe you even discover some real issue. 
> 
> Thanks
> Tomas

You should then find a solution where you can remove TPM_TRANSMIT_RAW
completely and make it as a separate commit, not part of the bug fix.
This is not in a shape that I would dare to put this in a pull request.

/Jarkko