[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250702125725.GA904431@ziepe.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 09:57:25 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...nsys.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
"open list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tpm: Managed allocations for tpm_buf instances
On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 05:51:35PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> @@ -32,28 +32,30 @@ struct tpm_readpubek_out {
> static ssize_t pubek_show(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> char *buf)
> {
> - struct tpm_buf tpm_buf;
> + struct tpm_buf *tpm_buf __free(kfree) = NULL;
> struct tpm_readpubek_out *out;
> int i;
> char *str = buf;
> struct tpm_chip *chip = to_tpm_chip(dev);
> char anti_replay[20];
>
> + tpm_buf = tpm_buf_alloc();
> + if (!tpm_buf)
> + return -ENOMEM;
apprently this isn't the style guide, you are supposed to write:
char anti_replay[20];
struct tpm_buf *tpm_buf __free(kfree) = tpm_buf_alloc();
if (!tpm_buf)
return -ENOMEM;
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists