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=-10.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 91074C433B4 for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F6A96142A for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 19:18:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233345AbhD2TSm (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:18:42 -0400 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([96.44.175.130]:34908 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238738AbhD2TJW (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Apr 2021 15:09:22 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D6B128060F; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1619723315; bh=Wr5b4YST9tl/BuuCQuNcLA2CvwkZHmyGHlsVuX6DZQ8=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=l73StIMHozzf/YnymVM3GIVZyJdmOM4eJ9AR5UhAIUp9LATjTdvU1Vp863KHVixDP tr5Dn0mIkExYdmXbNdjwTbBH9OdJIfGgeL5eUFOKegKs7HXOrdUazUeAdR9m0fSBgT I29v9viBAFrF3o7nqoTDFRpSJZC6MlXt0UBnHe5U= 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 ST3JDx_pPKLa; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jarvis.int.hansenpartnership.com (unknown [IPv6:2601:600:8280:66d1::527]) (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 4465612805FA; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1619723315; bh=Wr5b4YST9tl/BuuCQuNcLA2CvwkZHmyGHlsVuX6DZQ8=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=l73StIMHozzf/YnymVM3GIVZyJdmOM4eJ9AR5UhAIUp9LATjTdvU1Vp863KHVixDP tr5Dn0mIkExYdmXbNdjwTbBH9OdJIfGgeL5eUFOKegKs7HXOrdUazUeAdR9m0fSBgT I29v9viBAFrF3o7nqoTDFRpSJZC6MlXt0UBnHe5U= Message-ID: <08179943c02b0952546d01713e24ccba62d1a566.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] trusted-keys: match tpm_get_ops on all return paths From: James Bottomley To: Ben Boeckel Cc: keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Ben Boeckel , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:08:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <20210429183742.756766-1-list.lkml.keyrings@me.benboeckel.net> <20210429183742.756766-2-list.lkml.keyrings@me.benboeckel.net> <9eea988ff637af57511107c6c0941bff2aa7c6c5.camel@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: keyrings@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2021-04-29 at 15:03 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:50:50 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > Actually, I think this is a better fix to avoid multiple put and > > returns. > > > > James > > > > --- > > > > diff --git a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > index d225ad140960..cbf2a932577b 100644 > > --- a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > +++ b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c > > @@ -336,9 +336,9 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip, > > rc = -EPERM; > > } > > if (blob_len < 0) > > - return blob_len; > > - > > - payload->blob_len = blob_len; > > + rc = blob_len; > > + else > > + payload->blob_len = blob_len; > > > > tpm_put_ops(chip); > > return rc; > > Ah, that does look better. I had first added a new label, but that > didn't seem like an improvement in readability. I grabbed this > pattern from an early return earlier in the function. But given that > this is the end (and appears to be unlikely to have more logic > inserted in the future), this seems more reasonable to me as well. Do > you want me to respin or just let it up to you at this point? Can you respin? ... I'm a bit lossy at the moment due to pressure of work. Thanks, James