linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/20] KEYS: Add a system blacklist keyring [ver #2]

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: <1454949543.2648.220.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:39:03 -0500
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	petkan@...-labs.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/20] KEYS: Add a system blacklist keyring [ver #2]

On Mon, 2016-02-08 at 14:55 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > By separating out the blacklist keyring from the issue of trust, you'll have
> > smaller patch sets that can more easily be reviewed. (Reviewing anything
> > having to do with certificates is difficult enough.)  It would also allow
> > you to upstream the two patch sets independently of each other.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's a dependency between the subsets you're talking about
> in the form of the restriction function passed to keyring_alloc() - an
> argument that's only made available in the other subset, so they cannot be
> completely independent.
> 
> That said, the trust changes don't require the blacklist changes.

Right, I should have said the blacklist changes are dependent on the
trusted keyring changes.

In the "trust" patch set, could you please include Mehmet's patch?

Thanks!

Mimi