Re: Fwd: Re: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH v9 2/2] tpm: add securityfs support,for TPM 2.0 firmware event log

[Nayna]

On 02/01/2017 08:24 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 04:48:37PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:50:06PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 12:14:12AM +0530, Nayna wrote:
> > > > > I already sent my pull request to 4.11 and even today I found something
> > > > > fishy. You declared a function local array by using a variable in "tpm:
> > > > > enhance TPM 2.0 PCR extend to support multiple banks" (max_active_banks
> > > > > or something). And the event log patches have just passed the review.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. I have checked using clang and it has passed the clang.. and I also
> > > > verified there were no complains during build.
> > >
> > > What we can deduce from that is that they didn't expose the issue in
> > > question.
> > >
> > > I found this by running sparse with make C=2 M=drives/char/tpm
> > >
> > > > What type of problem do you see ?
> > >
> > > It is disallowed to do stack allocation in the kernel code even if C
> > > standard would allow it. Stack is scarce resource so you need to know
> > > its usage at compile time.
> > >
> > > In this case you actually know the allocation because the value is not
> > > changed during the course of the function but it is still bad. Probably
> > > compiler will optimize it out. Still it is not a good practice.
> > >
> > > > Also, to understand, this is related to multi-bank patchset. I mean how does
> > > > it affect for event log patchset ?
> > >
> > > Well in both cases these have landed fairly late but I asked from James
> > > whether I'll have to postpone these to 4.12.
> > >
> > > Usually when I've sent my release pull request I do not want to make any
> > > radical changes to the codebase because they always require extra QA and
> > > thus take extra time.
> >
> > rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, tpm_buf_length(&buf), 0, 0,
> > 		      "attempting extend a PCR value");
> >
> > This should be
> >
> > rc = tpm_transmit_cmd(chip, buf.data, PAGE_SIZE, 0, 0,
> > 		      "attempting extend a PCR value");
> >
> > The second parameter is the size of the buffer, not length of the input
> > data.
> >
> > /Jarkko
>
> As a sanity check can you test these commits and see if they still
> work for you as I've done now some updates to them? Thanks.

Thanks Jarkko, yes I tested for both multi-bank patches and event log.
Its working fine.

Thanks & Regards,
   - Nayna

> /Jarkko