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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:59:53 -0400
From:   Nayna <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@...e.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tpm: tpm_ibm_vtpm: Fix unallocated banks

Hi Jarkko,


On 07/09/2019 12:38 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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.

I have posted the v3 version that includes the suggested corrections by 
you and Stefan. Sorry for some delay.

Michal and Sachin, I would appreciate if you can test the v3 version, 
please ?

Thanks & Regards,
      - Nayna