linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/tpm: Fix runtime error

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]

Message-ID: <90215c3c313a926267abf66dcfa175dd10f6bc5c.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 May 2020 03:07:35 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Nikita Sobolev <Nikita.Sobolev@...opsys.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     "linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...el.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
        Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/tpm: Fix runtime error

On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 18:44 +0000, Nikita Sobolev wrote:
> Hi, Jarkko Sakkinen, all!
> 
> Thank you for your notes about commit and sorry for not copying the message
> to you!

It's not a biggie, no worries.

> There is definitely unwanted line of code in the commit.
> After deleting that one, introduced changes work fine.
> 
> There is a hardcoded usage of /dev/tpm2 in the kernel selftest. And if there
> is no such device - test fails.  I believe this is not a behavior, that we
> expect. Test should be skipped in such case, should it?  That is what my
> commit makes.
> 
> So, after deleting unwanted line of code and making cosmetic changes (new description + deleting
> excess newline character), can commit be submitted again?
> 
> You also mentioned reviewed-by nor tested-by tags in your message. Who should make these tags?
> 
> P.S.
> Also there was a question: why do I declare exit code with a constant instead of just exit 4.
> I chose this style because it is used in other kernel selftests for such kind of checks.
> It is proper to follow common style rules. Should I argument this decision in commit message? 
> 
> -Nikita

Yes, you are of course free to submit a new patch for review.

/Jarkko