[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190208162615.GA25734@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:26:15 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Huewe <PeterHuewe@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tpm: Unify the send callback behaviour
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:19:04AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 2/8/19 11:07 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:45:53AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> > > On 2/8/19 10:42 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:42:16AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: > On 2/8/19 9:05 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > At least tpm_nsc_send (tpm_nsc.c) and tpm_inf_send (tpm_infineon.c) are also
> > > > > returning the number of bytes sent. I would consider tpm_crb the outlier
> > > > > that returns 0 and should return the length even though we don't need it...
> > > > That would be absolutely wrong way the fix the *actual* issue i.e.
> > > > callbacks returning garbage (sometimes just passing the length parameter
> > > > back as a return value).
> > > Then I guess you have to fixes those other two files as well...
> > That's still a better option.
>
> tpm_tis_core.c's tpm_tis_send_main() also needs fixing...
Weird I had that fixed in my working area. Probably somehow managed
not to stage that change. It was like the very first things that
I fixed. Updating..
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists