Re: [PATCH] tpm: Move dereference after NULL check in tpm_buf_check_hmac_response

[Hao Ge <hao.ge@linux.dev>]

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@kylinos.cn>
>>
>> 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@kylinos.cn>
> Also lacking:
>
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> 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