From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73E4C433DB for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB85123A7C for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 18:08:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725923AbhAOSId (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:08:33 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55204 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726519AbhAOSId (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 13:08:33 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [IPv6:2607:fcd0:100:8a00::2]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA03CC061757; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:07:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35C0128076C; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:07:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1610734072; bh=ci3+bzcXi6cVS9rIkEZ+G1Ap63+K6eb8eLjYxo/Zm2k=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=wJ6Q9MrXy0Mk/pzVjvQwMie/bimvdj+NtuMCg6A2df2Qs7EM1hUqyEDLmk8wS35Fc so7VKGcZKmWVoy0RH2aDJiRYvjYdmWJaazZ+XMymXkEK6sK7Wt9awveBYpSoNJzYHb G2wnfUaOnyC2Zv/5s6a8de7/Mu75kdz/FroTDkI8= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aW_Wd4Jj4lK8; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:07:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from jarvis.int.hansenpartnership.com (unknown [IPv6:2601:600:8280:66d1::c447]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 43FF81280757; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:07:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1610734072; bh=ci3+bzcXi6cVS9rIkEZ+G1Ap63+K6eb8eLjYxo/Zm2k=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=wJ6Q9MrXy0Mk/pzVjvQwMie/bimvdj+NtuMCg6A2df2Qs7EM1hUqyEDLmk8wS35Fc so7VKGcZKmWVoy0RH2aDJiRYvjYdmWJaazZ+XMymXkEK6sK7Wt9awveBYpSoNJzYHb G2wnfUaOnyC2Zv/5s6a8de7/Mu75kdz/FroTDkI8= Message-ID: <7a245c854925c8619eeb02aab6ff32bbccc92ed9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] tpm: add sysfs exports for all banks of PCR registers From: James Bottomley To: Greg KH , Joe Perches Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar , Jarkko Sakkinen , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:07:51 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20210113232634.23242-1-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> <20210113232634.23242-2-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 09:26 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 14:54 +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 04:21:08PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > [...] > > > It looks like we already have a couple of bugs in the kernel > > > introduced by this confusion ... return sysfs_emit() vs return > > > sysfs_emit_at() being the most tricky ... > > > > Hm, Joe, you did the conversion to these functions (and wrote the > > api), care to review this? > > A cursory glance tells me that summary_show in > drivers/infiniband/hw/usnic/usnic_ib_sysfs.c has a problem, I think > the last = should be += The use in drivers/base/node.c:node_read_meminfo() is highly questionable. While currently not emitting wrong code, it depends on len being 0 when passed in to sysfs_emit_at(). That argues it should either be using sysfs_emit() or it should have a len += just in case something gets prepended that makes len non zero. James