On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:00:12AM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 04:22:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 04:21:53PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 04:59:47PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 11:40:48PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > - Avoid integer overflows when validating size fields; 'sz + 12' and > > > > > > '4 + sz' overflowed if 'sz' is near U32_MAX. > > > > > > > > > > So we have a struct tpm_header in include/linux/tpm.h. It would be way > > > > > more informative to use sizeof(struct tpm_header) than number 12, even > > > > > if the patch does not otherwise use the struct. It tells what it is, 12 > > > > > does not. > > > > > > > > I don't think that would be an improvement, given that the code is using > > > > hard-coded offsets. If it's reading 4 bytes from cur + 8, it's much easier to > > > > understand that it needs 12 bytes than 'sizeof(struct tpm_header)' bytes. > > > > > > > > I'd certainly encourage whoever is maintaining this code to change it to use > > > > structs instead, but that's not what this patch is meant to do. > > > > > > I would consider dropping asym_tpm as it has no practical use cases > > > existing. > > > > At least I have zero motivation to maintain it as it does not meet > > any quality standards and is based on insecure crypto algorithms. > > I neither have participated to its review process. > > Fair enough, I'll send a patch to remove it then. It is IMHO. I mean having this advertising insecure ways to to do crypto. Thank you. PS. My latency is because I've been moving to a new job. It is temporary. /Jarkko
