From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:28519 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726273AbeJOS0m (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:26:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:41:56 +0300 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: "Winkler, Tomas" Cc: Jason Gunthorpe , "Gustavo A. R. Silva" , Peter Huewe , Arnd Bergmann , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix unused-value issues in tpm_try_transmit Message-ID: <20181015104156.GA13408@linux.intel.com> References: <20181010133817.GA11485@embeddedor.com> <20181010140638.GA3894@ziepe.ca> <20181011120140.GA15767@linux.intel.com> <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9D9EEC12@hasmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <5B8DA87D05A7694D9FA63FD143655C1B9D9EEC12@hasmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 01:27:58PM +0000, Winkler, Tomas wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:06:38AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:38:17PM +0200, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote: > > > > Currently, there are some values assigned to variable *rc*, which > > > > are never actually used in any computation, because such variable is > > > > updated at line 550, before they can be used: > > > > > > > > 549out: > > > > 550 rc = tpm_go_idle(chip, flags); > > > > 551 if (rc) > > > > 552 goto out; > > > > > > > > Fix this by removing such assignments. > > > > > > Should this be done by not quashing rc during the error unwind rather > > > than dropping the errors? > > > > Yeah.` > > > > Wondering if tpm_go_idle() should simply be a void-function i.e. issue just a > > warning inside (disclaimer: did not revisit its code when writing this). > > We did have rather a long discussion about it when it was merged. > There are two flows that may crash > rc = tpm2_commit_space() > > but you still can need to > > rc = go_idle() > > which also may crash which may override the previous value. > > Frankly the second one is fatal, the stack will go out of sync. > We may do void here as the stack will crash in a subsequent command. > > The 'goto out' is quite a bug, probably caused by code movement. I just looked at the code properly and noticed that there is a regression caused by 627448e85c76 ("tpm: separate cmd_ready/go_idle from runtime_pm") i.e. when tpm_go_idle() fails it loops back and retries tpm_go_idle(). /Jarkko