| lists.openwall.net | 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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:58:49 +0100 From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] KEYS: The request_key() syscall should link an existing key to the dest keyring Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com> wrote: > 1. Is it correct to return -EINPROGRESS in this case? Yes - it prevents construct_key_and_link() from going on to call construct_key(). The key in question is returned in *_key. However, I don't think I handle other errors coming back from construct_alloc_key() correctly. > 2. (Why) Shouldn't the return value of __key_link() be checked? It should. In fact, I should probably precheck and preallocate the keyring to make sure I don't get errors after allocating the new key. > 3. In __key_link(), shouldn't rcu_dereference() be used when accessing > keyring->payload.subscriptions? No. We have to hold a write lock on the keyring semaphore if we're going to call __key_link() to add something to it. We should, however, call rcu_dereference_protected(). You should find a patch for this in your inbox. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists