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  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:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:53:04 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/18] Appended signatures support for IMA appraisal

On Tue, 2017-10-17 at 22:53 -0200, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> The main highlight in this version is that it fixes a bug where the modsig
> wasn't being included in the measurement list if the appraised file was
> already measured by another rule. The fix is in the last patch.
> 
> Another change is that the last patch in the v4 series ("ima: Support
> module-style appended signatures for appraisal") has been broken up into
> smaller patches. I may have overdone it...
> 
> Finally, I have added some patches removing superfluous parentheses from
> expressions. IMO these patches make it easier (and more pleasant) to read
> the code, and thus easier to understand it. Since I'm not sure how welcome
> the changes are, I split them in 3 "levels" in increasing potential for
> conflict with patches from other people (they can be squashed together when
> applied):
> 
> 1. patch 2 contains the bare minimum, changing only lines that are also
>    touched by other patches in the series;
> 
> 2. patch 3 cleans up all the files that are touched by this patch series;
> 
> 3. patch 4 cleans up all other EVM and IMA files that weren't already fixed
>    by the previous patches.
> 
> If unwanted, patches 3 and 4 can be simply skipped without affecting the
> rest of the patches. I have already rebased them from v4.13-rc2 to
> v4.14-rc3 and now to linux-integrity/next with very few easy to resolve
> conflicts, so I think they are worth keeping.
> 
> These patches apply on top of today's linux-integrity/next.

This cover letter and the patch descriptions are well written,
explaining what and why you're making this change.  The problem is
that I don't agree that fewer parentheses makes the code more
readable.  When you repost the patches (for other reasons), please
don't include these changes.

thanks,

Mimi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists