[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289918320.3188.16.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:38:40 -0500
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1.3 4/4] keys: add new key-type encrypted
On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 14:08 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Am assuming you mean something like this:
> >
> > keyctl add encrypted name "new trusted:master-key-name keylen" ring
> > keyctl add encrypted name "new user:master-key-name keylen" ring
> >
> > and, as you said, works without changing the API.
>
> No, that's not what I mean. I maeant that when your internal functions look
> for the user key, they should preface the description with a prefix.
>
> It should be handled in request_user_key() or request_master_key(). The
> description given to request_trusted_key() should have the prefix applied
> there. There's no need to mention it at all in the encrypted key add_key
> command line.
>
> David
I actually like keyctl requiring 'trusted:' or 'user:'. Forcing the
user to indicate which type of key they want, is actually good - no
misunderstandings. Another benefit, would be allowing 'keyctl update' to
update the key description, not the key type.
Mimi
--
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