ibmvtpm byteswapping inconsistency
Michal Suchánek
msuchanek at suse.de
Fri Jan 27 07:22:48 AEDT 2017
Hello,
building ibmvtpm I noticed gcc warning complaining that second word of
struct ibmvtpm_crq in tpm_ibmvtpm_suspend is uninitialized.
The structure is defined as
struct ibmvtpm_crq {
u8 valid;
u8 msg;
__be16 len;
__be32 data;
__be64 reserved;
} __attribute__((packed, aligned(8)));
initialized as
struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
u64 *buf = (u64 *) &crq;
...
crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_PREPARE_TO_SUSPEND;
and submitted with
rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, cpu_to_be64(buf[0]),
cpu_to_be64(buf[1]));
which means that the second word indeed contains purely garbage.
This is repeated a few times in the driver so I added memset to quiet
gcc and make behavior deterministic in case the unused fields get some
meaning in the future.
However, in tpm_ibmvtpm_send the structure is initialized as
struct ibmvtpm_crq crq;
__be64 *word = (__be64 *)&crq;
...
crq.valid = (u8)IBMVTPM_VALID_CMD;
crq.msg = (u8)VTPM_TPM_COMMAND;
crq.len = cpu_to_be16(count);
crq.data = cpu_to_be32(ibmvtpm->rtce_dma_handle);
and submitted with
rc = ibmvtpm_send_crq(ibmvtpm->vdev, be64_to_cpu(word[0]),
be64_to_cpu(word[1]));
meaning it is swapped twice.
Where is the interface defined? Are the command arguments passed as BE
subfields (the second case was correct before adding the extra whole
word swap) or BE words (the first case doing whole word swap is
correct)?
Thanks
Michal
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list