[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YCQRPo0o6MZ0pcUa@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 19:00:46 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
Cc: jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, dhowells@...hat.com, jens.wiklander@...aro.org,
corbet@....net, jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
casey@...aufler-ca.com, janne.karhunen@...il.com,
daniel.thompson@...aro.org, Markus.Wamser@...ed-mode.de,
lhinds@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/4] KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:31:43PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> + case Opt_new:
> + key_len = payload->key_len;
> + ret = static_call(trusted_key_get_random)(payload->key,
> + key_len);
> + if (ret != key_len) {
> + pr_info("trusted_key: key_create failed (%d)\n", ret);
> + goto out;
> + }
This repeats a regression in existing code, i.e. does not check
"ret < 0" condition. I noticed this now when I rebased the code
on top of my fixes.
I.e. it's fixed in my master branch, which caused a merge conflict,
and I found this.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists