linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tee: amdtee: unload TA only when its refcount becomes 0

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]

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