On 2/8/19 3:38 PM, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 2/8/19 3:10 PM, Liam Merwick wrote:
From staring at the code, I do have one other question - why does the
check of the lower localities below only check 'l < locty - 1' before
setting s->loc[locty] - it seems like s->loc[locty - 1] is skipped.
On 2/8/19 3:10 PM, Liam Merwick wrote:
trace_tpm_tis_abort(s->next_locty);
/*
@@ -531,6 +534,8 @@ static void tpm_tis_mmio_write(void *opaque,
hwaddr addr,
uint16_t len;
uint32_t mask = (size == 1) ? 0xff : ((size == 2) ? 0x : ~0);
+ assert(TPM_TIS_IS_VALID_LOCTY
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for the detailed explanations.
On 04/02/2019 18:05, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 1/30/19 9:45 AM, Liam Merwick wrote:
Assert that various locality values don't exceed TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES
by adding specific calls to assert(TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES(l)) in order
to help static code
On 1/30/19 9:45 AM, Liam Merwick wrote:
Assert that various locality values don't exceed TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES
by adding specific calls to assert(TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES(l)) in order
to help static code analysis.
Signed-off-by: Liam Merwick
---
hw/tpm/tpm_tis.c | 5 +
1 file changed, 5 i
Assert that various locality values don't exceed TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES
by adding specific calls to assert(TPM_TIS_NUM_LOCALITIES(l)) in order
to help static code analysis.
Signed-off-by: Liam Merwick
---
hw/tpm/tpm_tis.c | 5 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/hw/tpm/tpm_tis.c
