On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:55:41AM +0530, Nayna wrote: > > > 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
OK, good, thanks. /Jarkko
