linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make chip->{status,cancel,req

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: <Z-XDSoTtEGfJJx9i@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:29:46 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...nel.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...nsys.com>,
	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Make chip->{status,cancel,req_canceled} opt

On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 04:37:13PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 05:06:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 05:00:11PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:12:36AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2025-03-27 at 15:23 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:58:00AM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > > @@ -65,6 +89,7 @@ static ssize_t tpm_try_transmit(struct tpm_chip
> > > > > > > *chip, void *buf, size_t bufsiz)
> > > > > > > 	ssize_t len = 0;
> > > > > > > 	u32 count, ordinal;
> > > > > > > 	unsigned long stop;
> > > > > > > +	u8 status;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why move `status` out of the do/while block?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not a huge fan of stack allocations inside blocks, unless there
> > > > > is a particular reason to do so.
> > > >
> > > > The move to scope based locking and freeing in cleanup.h necessitates
> > > > using scope based variables as well, so they're something we all have
> > > > to embrace.  They're also useful to tell the compiler when it can
> > > > reclaim the variable and they often create an extra stack frame that
> > > > allows the reclaim to be effective (even if the compiler can work out
> > > > where a variable is no longer reference, the space can't be reclaimed
> > > > if it's in the middle of an in-use stack frame).  I'd say the rule of
> > > > thumb should be only do something like this if it improves readability
> > > > or allows you to remove an additional block from the code.
> > > 
> > > Reclaiming here is only shift in the frame pointer, nothing to do with
> > > reclaiming resources or freeing locks. Consolidating value state into
> > > single location does improve readability as far as I'm concerned.
> > 
> > Anyhow, I reverted that change given the feedback :-)
> > 
> > Since I'm late sending PR, I'll put this patch to my 6.15 PR.
> 
> Okay, so I'll not include it in my series and I'll rebase my series on your
> tree.

Let's hold on for what Linus think (i.e. pr-tracker-bot).

I.e., conditional yes.

> 
> Thanks,
> Stefano
> 

BR, Jarkko