linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 12/20] PKCS#7: Make the signature a pointer rather than embedding it [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: <30169.1455883006@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:56:46 +0000
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	keyrings@...r.kernel.org, petkan@...-labs.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/20] PKCS#7: Make the signature a pointer rather than embedding it [ver #2]

Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > Point to the public_key_signature struct from the pkcs7_signed_info struct
> > rather than embedding it.  This makes it easier to have it take an
> > arbitrary number of MPIs in future.
> 
> Just a reminder ...
> 
> Reviewing patches isn't easy no matter how well written and documented,
> especially large patch sets.   For this reason, patch sets should be
> limited to the patches that are required to accomplish the patch set
> goal.  In this case, that goal is to change  "how certificates/keys are
> determined to be trusted."
> 
> Although this patch is straight forward, the patch description should
> include a reason for including this patch in this patch set.   Is having
> an arbitrary number of MPIs included in this patch set?  Could this
> patch be deferred?

Actually, this may be changed with the advent of Tadeusz's patches.

David