[PATCH] tpm: fix missing string

[PATCH] tpm: fix missing string

[Kylene Jo Hall]

A string corresponding to the tcpa_pc_event_id POST_CONTENTS was missing
causing an overflow bug when access was attempted in the get_event_name
function.

This bug was found by Coverity.

Signed-off-by: Kylene Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com>
---
 drivers/char/tpm/tpm_bios.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)

--- linux-2.6.17-rc1/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_bios.c	2006-04-18 15:14:45.626390250 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc1-tpm/drivers/char/tpm/tpm_bios.c	2006-04-19 13:53:55.746954250 -0500
@@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ static const char* tcpa_pc_event_id_stri
 	"S-CRTM Version",
 	"S-CRTM Contents",
 	"S-CRTM POST Contents",
+	"POST Contents",
 };
 
 /* returns pointer to start of pos. entry of tcg log */

Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix missing string

[Andrew Morton]

Kylene Jo Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> A string corresponding to the tcpa_pc_event_id POST_CONTENTS was missing
>  causing an overflow bug when access was attempted in the get_event_name
>  function.

These last two bugs are applicable to 2.6.17.

I'm kind of thinking of pushing all the TPM patches into 2.6.17 actually. 
Although there's quite a lot of feature work in there, we also have
bugfixes, although relatively minor ones.

What's your confidence level in those patches?

Would you have time to do a decent round of regression testing against the
resulting TPM code prior to 2.6.17?  Say, inside the next couple of weeks?

Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix missing string

[Kylene Jo Hall]

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Kylene Jo Hall <kjhall@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > A string corresponding to the tcpa_pc_event_id POST_CONTENTS was missing
> >  causing an overflow bug when access was attempted in the get_event_name
> >  function.
> 
> These last two bugs are applicable to 2.6.17.
Correct.
> 
> I'm kind of thinking of pushing all the TPM patches into 2.6.17 actually. 
> Although there's quite a lot of feature work in there, we also have
> bugfixes, although relatively minor ones.
> 
> What's your confidence level in those patches?

> Would you have time to do a decent round of regression testing against the
> resulting TPM code prior to 2.6.17?  Say, inside the next couple of weeks?

I'm pretty confident.  Yesterday's bug fixes were the last things I know
of that needed attention.  I'd be happy to run regression testing in the
next couple of weeks.

Thanks,
Kylie