Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy

From	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy
Date	2015-12-08 12:10 +0100
Message-ID	<qDojD-1AO-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <qvYNk-3Of-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qw52p-86c-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <qwJMe-13l-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qD07F-2A3-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <qDcBR-2jb-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:35:05AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:34:35PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:21:01AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >  			}
> > > > > >  			break;
> > > > > > +		case Opt_policydigest:
> > > > > > +			if (!tpm2 ||
> > > > > > +			    strlen(args[0].from) != (2 * opt->digest_len))
> > > > > > +				return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > +			kfree(opt->policydigest);
> > > > > > +			opt->policydigest = kzalloc(opt->digest_len,
> > > > > > +						    GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is it correct to kfree opt->policydigest here before allocating it?
> > > > 
> > > > I think so. The same option might be encountered multiple times.
> > > 
> > > This would surely signify an error?
> > 
> > I'm following the semantics of other options. That's why I implemented
> > it that way for example:
> > 
> > keyctl add trusted kmk "new 32 keyhandle=0x80000000 keyhandle=0x80000000"
> > 
> > is perfectly OK. I just thought that it'd be more odd if this option
> > behaved in a different way...
> 
> It seems broken to me -- if you're messing up keyctl commands you might 
> want to know about it, but we should remain consistent.

So should I return error if policyhandle/digest appears a second time? I
agree that it'd be better to return -EINVAL.

The existing behavior is such that any option can appear multiple times
and I chose to be consistent with that.

> -- 
> James Morris
> <jmorris@namei.org>

/Jarkko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Thread

Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-07 10:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> - 2015-12-07 23:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-08 12:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-08 21:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-12-09 01:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> - 2015-12-09 15:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2015-12-09 17:20 +0100

csiph-web