linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] trusted-keys: match tpm_get

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: <08179943c02b0952546d01713e24ccba62d1a566.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:08:34 -0700
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Ben Boeckel <me@...boeckel.net>
Cc:     keyrings@...r.kernel.org, Ben Boeckel <mathstuf@...il.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] trusted-keys: match tpm_get_ops on all return paths

On Thu, 2021-04-29 at 15:03 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:50:50 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Actually, I think this is a better fix to avoid multiple put and
> > returns.
> > 
> > James
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > diff --git a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > index d225ad140960..cbf2a932577b 100644
> > --- a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > +++ b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > @@ -336,9 +336,9 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> >  			rc = -EPERM;
> >  	}
> >  	if (blob_len < 0)
> > -		return blob_len;
> > -
> > -	payload->blob_len = blob_len;
> > +		rc = blob_len;
> > +	else
> > +		payload->blob_len = blob_len;
> >  
> >  	tpm_put_ops(chip);
> >  	return rc;
> 
> Ah, that does look better. I had first added a new label, but that
> didn't seem like an improvement in readability. I grabbed this
> pattern from an early return earlier in the function. But given that
> this is the end (and appears to be unlikely to have more logic
> inserted in the future), this seems more reasonable to me as well. Do
> you want me to respin or just let it up to you at this point?

Can you respin? ... I'm a bit lossy at the moment due to pressure of
work.

Thanks,

James