From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932304AbdEKKRA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 11 May 2017 06:17:00 -0400
Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:59161 "EHLO mga09.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932258AbdEKKQ7 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 11 May 2017 06:16:59 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,323,1491289200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1167750434"
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:16:46 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>,
        tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@gmx.de>,
        Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@selhorst.net>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: fix byte order related arithmetic inconsistency in
 tpm_getcap()
Message-ID: <20170511101646.556aoezp77wlcrw7@intel.com>
References: <20170507175002.9558-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
 <20170509141353.klo7lilef4qiqfoc@intel.com>
 <20170509151308.GA13586@obsidianresearch.com>
 <20170510123458.fh3ef3c55y2wiu35@intel.com>
 <CAExDi1RODELLA+N4_5JS3LcDa5DN4q_imYwhw4hd4BHq1GFRBw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAExDi1RODELLA+N4_5JS3LcDa5DN4q_imYwhw4hd4BHq1GFRBw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:41:15AM +0200, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Arithmetic should work but it's not a good practice to do additions,
> > substractions or multiplications in any other byte order than the CPU
> > byte order.
> >
> > sparse also complains about this.
> >
> > /Jarkko
> 
> Arithmetic should work?
> let's try with 0x0080:
> in native order: 0x0080 + 0x0080 = 0x0100
> in reverse order: 0x8000 + 0x8000 = 0x0000 != swap16(0x0100)
> 
> Or do I misunderstand what you mean by "arithmetic should work"?
> 
> -- Luc Van Oostenryck

I was referring to the specific code snippet in tpm-interface.c.

/Jarkko