linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm

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: <1562624644.11461.66.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 08 Jul 2019 18:24:04 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks

Hi Jarkko,

On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 18:11 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-07-06 at 20:18 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * tpm_get_pcr_allocation() - initialize the chip allocated banks for PCRs
> > + * @chip: TPM chip to use.
> > + */
> > +static int tpm_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> > +{
> > +	int rc;
> > +
> > +	if (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2)
> > +		rc = tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(chip);
> > +	else
> > +		rc = tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(chip);
> > +
> > +	return rc;
> > +}
> 
> It is just a trivial static function, which means that kdoc comment is
> not required and neither it is useful. Please remove that. I would
> rewrite the function like:
> 
> static int tpm_get_pcr_allocation(struct tpm_chip *chip)
> {
> 	int rc;
> 
> 	rc = (chip->flags & TPM_CHIP_FLAG_TPM2) ?
>      	     tpm2_get_pcr_allocation(chip) :
>      	     tpm1_get_pcr_allocation(chip);

> 
> 	return rc > 0 ? -ENODEV : rc;
> }
> 
> This addresses the issue that Stefan also pointed out. You have to
> deal with the TPM error codes.

Hm, in the past I was told by Christoph not to use the ternary
operator.  Have things changed?  Other than removing the comment, the
only other difference is the return.

Mimi