TpmFailureMode: Add missing request size checks #105
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This is harmless, but it is inconsistent with the non-failure case.
This doesn't change the observable behavior of the TPM. However, when
combined with the previous commit ("TpmFailureMode: Add missing request
size checks"), it guarantees that the unmarshalling functions in
TpmFail.c always succeed and could be changed to return void, which
would simplify the code.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is harmless, but is inconsistent with the non-failure case.
The second commit doesn’t change the TPM’s observable behavior. However, when combined with the first commit, it would allow the bounds checks in
TpmFail.c’sUnmarshal16()andUnmarshal32()to be omitted, or even replacing these functions withBYTE_ARRAY_TO_UINT16()andBYTE_ARRAY_TO_UINT32()respectively. I did not make this change as it would be a slightly larger refactor. I’m fine with keeping the second commit, dropping it entirely, or squashing it into the first commit.