lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-08 12:21    [W:0.083 / U:0.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site