linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 11/12] certs: Add a secondary system keyring that can be added to dynamically [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: <1457447480.5321.115.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 08 Mar 2016 09:31:20 -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,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/12] certs: Add a secondary system keyring that
 can be added to dynamically [ver #2]

On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 13:13 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > but we're left with a lot of references to "system_trusted" (eg.
> > restrict_link_to_system_trusted, depends on SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING
> 
> How about I pluralise it to SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRINGS?  The fact that one is
> called builtin and the other secondary doesn't detract from the fact that
> they're both system-wide rings of trusted keys.

Would then restrict_link_to_system_trusted imply both the builtin and
secondary keyrings or just the builtin keyrings?   Changing the system
keyring name to builtin keys, without changing the corresponding
restrict_link name, obfuscates what is really happening.

Mimi