From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com (Jason Gunthorpe) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 09:39:34 -0600 Subject: [tpmdd-devel] [PATCH] tpm: fix byte order related arithmetic inconsistency in tpm_getcap() In-Reply-To: <20170515113602.2jypna4keatq73qy@intel.com> References: <20170507175002.9558-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20170509141353.klo7lilef4qiqfoc@intel.com> <20170509151308.GA13586@obsidianresearch.com> <20170510123458.fh3ef3c55y2wiu35@intel.com> <20170515113602.2jypna4keatq73qy@intel.com> Message-ID: <20170515153934.GB3433@obsidianresearch.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:36:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 03:34:58PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:13:08AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 05:13:53PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 08:50:02PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > You should not do arithmetic with __be32 or __le32 types because > > > > > sometimes it results incorrect results. Calculations must be done only > > > > > with integers that are in in the CPU byte order. This commit migrates > > > > > tpm_getcap() to struct tpm_buf in order to sort out these issues. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen > > > > > Now this should work as Robertos patches move byte order conversion > > > > > where it should be. Sadly I'm out of reach to my Dell E6400 laptop > > > > > that I use for TPM 1.2 testing. > > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm-interface.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++-------------- > > > > > drivers/char/tpm/tpm.h | 13 ------------- > > > > > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > I've now tested this with TPM 1.2. Any complains? > > > > > > Seems reasonable, but which linke had the problematic arithmetic? > > > > > > Jason > > > > Arithmetic should work but it's not a good practice to do additions, > > substractions or multiplications in any other byte order than the CPU > > byte order. > > > > sparse also complains about this. > > Can I get your Reviewed-by for this one? Sure, but I'm still wondering what the sparse warning was? Jason -- 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