linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/15] KEYS: Fixes

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]

Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:09:31 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, ebiggers@...gle.com,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/15] KEYS: Fixes

Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:

> > -		if (test_bit(KEY_FLAG_INSTANTIATED, &key->flags))
> > +		if (state == KEY_IS_INSTANTIATED)
> >  			atomic_dec(&key->user->nikeys);
> 
> This changes the behavior.  Previously ->nikeys counted both negatively and
> positively instantiated keys, while this change implies that it now will only
> count positively instantiated keys.  I think you meant 'state !=
> KEY_IS_UNINSTANTIATED'?  Renaming KEY_IS_INSTANTIATED to KEY_IS_POSITIVE or
> KEY_IS_POSITIVELY_INSTANTIATED also might help reduce this confusion.

Yeah - I think I'm confusing myself by overloading 'instantiated' in my mind.

David