On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 07:24:16AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-11-27 at 21:48 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:31:20AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> [...]
> > > diff --git a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > > b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > > index bc700f85f80b..97b1dfca2dba 100644
> > > --- a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > > +++ b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tpm2.c
> > > @@ -228,8 +228,9 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > struct trusted_key_payload *payload,
> > > struct trusted_key_options *options)
> > > {
> > > + off_t offset = TPM_HEADER_SIZE;
> > > + struct tpm_buf buf, sized;
> > > int blob_len = 0;
> > > - struct tpm_buf buf;
> > > u32 hash;
> > > u32 flags;
> > > int i;
> > > @@ -258,6 +259,14 @@ int tpm2_seal_trusted(struct tpm_chip *chip,
> > > return rc;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + rc = tpm_buf_init_sized(&sized);
> > > + if (rc) {
> > > + tpm_buf_destroy(&buf);
> >
> > It won't really hurt, but at the moment if tpm_buf_init_sized()
> > returns non-zero, then it must be returning -ENOMEM, and
> > tpm_buf_destroy(&buf) is not needed, right?
>
> No ... buf was initialized further up in the original code (you seem to
> be confusing buf and sized ...
You're right, I was. Thanks.
> they're two separate allocations). We
> can't return from here without destroying it otherwise we'll leak a
> page.
>
> James
