lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:14:11 -0800
From:   Eric Biggers <>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc:     Satya Tangirala <>,,,,,,,
        Barani Muthukumaran <>,
        Kuohong Wang <>,
        Kim Boojin <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] block: Keyslot Manager for Inline Encryption

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:31:18AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:04:34AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Given that blk_ksm_get_slot_for_key returns a signed keyslot that
> > can return errors, and the only callers stores it in a signed variable
> > I think this function should take a signed slot as well, and the check
> > for a non-negative slot should be moved here from the only caller.
> Actually looking over the code again I think it might be better to
> return only the error code (and that might actually be a blk_status_t),
> and then use an argument to return a pointer to the actual struct
> keyslot.  That gives us much easier to understand code and better
> type safety.

That doesn't make sense because the caller only cares about the keyslot number,
not the 'struct keyslot'.  The 'struct keyslot' is internal to
keyslot-manager.c, as it only contains keyslot management information.

Your earlier suggestion of making blk_ksm_put_slot() be a no-op on a negative
keyslot number sounds fine though.

- Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists