linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] KEYS: Provide keyctls to do public key operations

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: <17643.1460806407@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:33:27 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, pjones@...hat.com, tadeusz.struk@...el.com,
	marcel@...tmann.org, dwmw2@...radead.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KEYS: Provide keyctls to do public key operations

Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> > The interface for the active ops is a bit clunky as the syscall interface
> > doesn't provide sufficient argument space to pass everything I need to
> > specify.  Some basic integer arguments are specified in a struct and more
> > complex options through a string of key=val pairs - just so I don't have to
> > deal with the compat code for dealing with a struct containing pointers
> > (but I can change to that if it's preferable).
>
> It sounds like the struct would still have pointers to strings that would
> need parsing,

It doesn't:

	struct keyctl_pkey_params {
		__s32		key_id;
		__s32		password_id;
		__u32		data_len;
		__u32		enc_len;
		__u32		__spare[4];
	};

because I have sufficient syscall arguments to pass four pointers - the struct
above, one info string and two buffer pointers.

> so I'm not sure it's that much overhead to handle the short
> strings of key=val pairs. But I'll agree that it feels clunky.

... fixes applied ...

> > +	info->supported_ops = KEYCTL_SUPPORTS_VERIFY;
> 
> Did you intend to include encrypt/decrypt/sign here?

When they're implemented there.

David