[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181105125537.ux4eehruuncqukli@sole.flsd.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 15:55:37 +0300
From: Vitaly Chikunov <vt@...linux.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] crypto: streebog - add Streebog hash function
Mimi,
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 07:48:33AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 08:51 +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 02:08:51PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 09:41:05AM +0300, Vitaly Chikunov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It is the first part of attempts to add to the Integrity subsystem
> > > > ability of verifying file and module signatures by Russian GOST
> > > > algorithms.
> > >
> > > It would be better if these patches are posted together. That
> > > way we don't end up with a situation where the algorithm goes into
> > > the kernel but the ultimate user is rejected.
> >
> > IMA does not need any particular patching inside of their subtree to
> > support new hash, because it is using any hash registered in Hash Info
> > which is still under crypto subtree. I added appropriate patch into v3
> > which is already posted a week ago, and tested it to work correctly with
> > ima_appraise=fix.
>
> That's true, but the target subsystem should be made aware of the new
> usage.
Did you mean by re-sending the patch with Cc to linux-integrity? Or
something more?
Thanks,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists