linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: Unify the send callback behaviour

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]

Date:   Fri, 8 Feb 2019 19:59:46 +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>,
        Alexander Steffen <Alexander.Steffen@...ineon.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] tpm: Unify the send callback behaviour

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:36:19AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> On 2/8/19 11:30 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >   static void tpm_nsc_cancel(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > diff --git a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > index 60e2038652b8..1d781c19f112 100644
> > --- a/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis_core.c
> > @@ -507,7 +507,11 @@ static int tpm_tis_send(struct tpm_chip *chip, u8 *buf, size_t len)
> >   	if (!priv->irq_tested)
> >   		disable_interrupts(chip);
> >   	priv->irq_tested = true;
> > -	return rc;
> > +
> > +	if (rc < 0)
> > +		return rc;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> >   }
> 
> 
> That's not all... There's this above it as well with tpm_tis_send_main
> returning with 'return len;'.
> 
>     if (!(chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_IRQ) || priv->irq_tested)
>         return tpm_tis_send_main(chip, buf, len);

OK, looks like that your suggestion to do it in *_main() was correct
after all.

/Jarkko