[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110519213754.GA10072@mail.hallyn.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 16:37:54 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
David Safford <safford@...son.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...ia.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/21] evm: re-release
Quoting Mimi Zohar (zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
...
> +extern int evm_hmac_size;
...
> +int evm_hmac_size = SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE;
I think I object to having both MAX_DIGEST_SIZE and evm_hmac_size, both
of which are set to SHA1_DIGEST_SIZE throughout this patchset. Especially
because of the comment I was about to make on patch 4/21, where you
then prepend the hmac with a 'type' byte, and start passing around
MAX_DIGEST_SIZE+1 and evm_hmac_size+1.
Even if you're going to be using those differently in a later patchset,
let's focus on this set for now and keep things simpler. One constant
for the hmac size, and then please define a new one (in patch 4) for
the annotated digest size. I can't think think of a good name. Which
suggests that perhaps you should define a nicely typed struct to contain
the header+hmac...
I see no other problems, so presuming that these are nicely addressed
I expect to happily ack.
thanks,
-serge
--
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