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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bxm7fa2st6glsegemyxbwj4q47azl7h3qmg4vo7o4xqa4ahstj@frtabtwa7jok>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:37:13 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
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 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.

Thanks,
Stefano