diff for duplicates of <1520877553.4522.25.camel@HansenPartnership.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 3d1b598..5c6ec0b 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -10,10 +10,15 @@ On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 09:00 -0700, J Freyensee wrote: > Assuming that functions like tpm_buf_init() are the top-level API > being defined in this patch, shouldn't it check if buf is valid > before passing into the internal functions like __tpm_buf_init(buf) -> (maybe WARN()/BUG_ON()?). Or does __tpm_buf_init(buf) do this check? +> (maybe WARN()/BUG_ON()?).? Or does __tpm_buf_init(buf) do this check? These are kernel internal APIs designed for on stack struct tpm_buf usage, so I can't think of a viable threat model that would require this type of checking ... do you have one? James + +-- +To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in +the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org +More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index c432038..637cf66 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -1,14 +1,10 @@ "ref\01520720026.4495.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com\0" "ref\01520720090.4495.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com\0" "ref\0277bd8a1-9e7f-f6e8-bede-5208f0456adf@gmail.com\0" - "From\0James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>\0" - "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] tpm-buf: create new functions for handling TPM buffers\0" + "From\0James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com (James Bottomley)\0" + "Subject\0[PATCH v3 1/6] tpm-buf: create new functions for handling TPM buffers\0" "Date\0Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:59:13 -0700\0" - "To\0J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@gmail.com>" - " linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org\0" - "Cc\0linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" - linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org - " Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>\0" + "To\0linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 09:00 -0700, J Freyensee wrote:\n" @@ -23,12 +19,17 @@ "> Assuming that functions like tpm_buf_init() are the top-level API\n" "> being defined in this patch, shouldn't it check if buf is valid\n" "> before passing into the internal functions like __tpm_buf_init(buf)\n" - "> (maybe WARN()/BUG_ON()?). Or does __tpm_buf_init(buf) do this check?\n" + "> (maybe WARN()/BUG_ON()?).? Or does __tpm_buf_init(buf) do this check?\n" "\n" "These are kernel internal APIs designed for on stack struct tpm_buf\n" "usage, so I can't think of a viable threat model that would require\n" "this type of checking ... do you have one?\n" "\n" - James + "James\n" + "\n" + "--\n" + "To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe linux-security-module\" in\n" + "the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org\n" + More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -b1402848189ec7c19b4d7000a2056fdaa26850e445afdcbd5a7a2439f9c49408 +71287ce69795c4268329dc8b8c4ed363bb3cea4d3cf97333c82ceba29adea6b7
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.