linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] fTPM: firmware TPM running in TEE

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]

Date:   Thu, 04 Jul 2019 12:20:30 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     peterhuewe@....de, jgg@...pe.ca, corbet@....net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...rosoft.com,
        thiruan@...rosoft.com, bryankel@...rosoft.com,
        tee-dev@...ts.linaro.org, ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org,
        sumit.garg@...aro.org, rdunlap@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] fTPM: firmware TPM running in TEE

On Sat, 2019-06-29 at 11:01 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:31:35AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 16:13 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > +static const uuid_t ftpm_ta_uuid =
> > > +	UUID_INIT(0xBC50D971, 0xD4C9, 0x42C4,
> > > +		  0x82, 0xCB, 0x34, 0x3F, 0xB7, 0xF3, 0x78, 0x96);
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * ftpm_tee_tpm_op_recv - retrieve fTPM response.
> > > + *
> > 
> > Should not have an empty line here.
> > 
> > > + * @chip: the tpm_chip description as specified in driver/char/tpm/tpm.h.
> > > + * @buf: the buffer to store data.
> > > + * @count: the number of bytes to read.
> 
> Jarkko, w.r.t your comment above, there is an empty line between the
> function name and variables in drivers/char/tpm, and in particular
> tpm_crb.c which you authored and I used as reference. Do you want us to
> diverge here?

There is divergence and that was the first thing I've contributed to
the TPM driver. I use this as the reference for formatting function
descriptions these days:

https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kernel-doc-nano-HOWTO.txt

According to that the legit way to format would be:

* ftpm_tee_tpm_op_recv() - retrieve fTPM response.
* @chip:	the tpm_chip description as specified in driver/char/tpm/tpm.h.
* @buf:		the buffer to store data.
* @count:	the number of bytes to read.

Since it is both a callback to an interface defined elsewhere
and a static function and it does not document anything useful,
I would just remove this comment. I'd do it for all callbacks
that are part of tpm_call_ops.

/Jarkko