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: <20190709163827.2u6jeflrhg44q7dy@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 19:38:27 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 03:43:04PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 06:24:04PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> In the end it is a matter of personal preference, but I find the
> quote version above using the ternary horribly obsfucated.

I fully agree that the return statement is an obsfucated mess and
not a good place at all for using ternary operator.

/Jarkko