linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151208202423.GA4232@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2015 22:24:23 +0200
From:	Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
	Marcel Selhorst <tpmdd@...horst.net>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
	"open list:KEYS-ENCRYPTED" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:KEYS-ENCRYPTED" <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" 
	<tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 01:01:02PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:35:05AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:34:35PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:21:01AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  			}
> > > > > > >  			break;
> > > > > > > +		case Opt_policydigest:
> > > > > > > +			if (!tpm2 ||
> > > > > > > +			    strlen(args[0].from) != (2 * opt->digest_len))
> > > > > > > +				return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > +			kfree(opt->policydigest);
> > > > > > > +			opt->policydigest = kzalloc(opt->digest_len,
> > > > > > > +						    GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Is it correct to kfree opt->policydigest here before allocating it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I think so. The same option might be encountered multiple times.
> > > > 
> > > > This would surely signify an error?
> > > 
> > > I'm following the semantics of other options. That's why I implemented
> > > it that way for example:
> > > 
> > > keyctl add trusted kmk "new 32 keyhandle=0x80000000 keyhandle=0x80000000"
> > > 
> > > is perfectly OK. I just thought that it'd be more odd if this option
> > > behaved in a different way...
> > 
> > It seems broken to me -- if you're messing up keyctl commands you might 
> > want to know about it, but we should remain consistent.
> 
> So should I return error if policyhandle/digest appears a second time? I
> agree that it'd be better to return -EINVAL.
> 
> The existing behavior is such that any option can appear multiple times
> and I chose to be consistent with that.

Mimi, David?

/Jarkko
--
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/