lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [7]   [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 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.


--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-08 00:01    [W:0.106 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site