[<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
 
