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: <20210409084541.GE6048@kadam>
Date:   Fri, 9 Apr 2021 11:45:41 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Rijo Thomas <Rijo-john.Thomas@....com>
Cc:     Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
        Devaraj Rangasamy <Devaraj.Rangasamy@....com>,
        Mythri Pandeshwara krishna <mythri.pandeshwarakrishna@....com>,
        op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tee: amdtee: unload TA only when its refcount becomes
 0

On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 03:13:09PM +0530, Rijo Thomas wrote:
> @@ -340,7 +398,8 @@ int handle_open_session(struct tee_ioctl_open_session_arg *arg, u32 *info,
> 
>  int handle_load_ta(void *data, u32 size, struct tee_ioctl_open_session_arg *arg)
>  {
> -	struct tee_cmd_load_ta cmd = {0};
> +	struct tee_cmd_unload_ta unload_cmd = {0};
> +	struct tee_cmd_load_ta load_cmd = {0};

It's better style to write:

	struct tee_cmd_unload_ta unload_cmd = {};

It doesn't make a difference in this case, but if the first struct
member is a pointer then {0} can generate a Sparse warning.  Or
depending on which bugs your version of GCC has it can affect whether
struct holes are initialized.  But mostly it's just the prefered style.


regards,
dan carpenter

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ