Hi Jarkko
Have a nice day.
On 7/15/24 19:25, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Tue Jul 9, 2024 at 5:33 AM EEST, Hao Ge wrote:
From: Hao Ge <gehao@xxxxxxxxxx>
We shouldn't dereference "auth" until after we have checked that it is
non-NULL.
Fixes: 7ca110f2679b ("tpm: Address !chip->auth in tpm_buf_append_hmac_session*()")
Signed-off-by: Hao Ge <gehao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Also lacking:
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/3b1755a9-b12f-42fc-b26d-de2fe4e13ec2@stanley.mountain/T/#u
Regarding this version, I don't think I should add these.
I send this patch on July 9th, 2024.
The following email was sent on July 13th, 2024.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/3b1755a9-b12f-42fc-b26d-de2fe4e13ec2@stanley.mountain/T/#u
I think these should be included in the subsequent versions (if any).
What is happening here is that my commit exposed pre-existing bug to
static analysis but it did not introduce a new regression. I missed
from your patch how did you ended up to your conclusions.
Please *do not* ignore the sources next time. Either explain how the bug
was found or provide the reporting source. You are essentially taking
credit and also blame from the work that you did not accomplish
yourself, which is both wrong and dishonest.
BR, Jarkko
OK,got it,I'll pay more attention to such details in the future.
I would like to clarify that I did not taking credit and dishonest.
As stated earlier, the timeline indicates that my patch preceded his email.
Before submitting my patch, I conducted a thorough search to ensure that
there were no related submissions,
in order to avoid any duplication of effort and wastage of everyone's
time.
I didn't expect to have wasted everyone's time because of commit message
, and I sincerely apologize for that.
Thanks
BR
Hao
