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:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 07:25:17 -0700
From:   James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Denis Kenzior <denkenz@...il.com>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        James Morris <james.morris@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Bad file pattern in MAINTAINERS section 'KEYS-TRUSTED'

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 08:10 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> Hi Jarrko,
> 
> On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 13:37 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > Mimi,
> > 
> > Can you fix this and I can ack and send PR through my tree?
> 
> Making the "trusted.h" include file public was part of David's "KEYS:
> Support TPM-wrapped key and crypto ops" patch set.  I wasn't involved
> in reviewing or upstreaming this patch set.  As I recall, it was
> upstreamed rather quickly without much review.  As it is TPM related,
> it should have at least been posted on the linux-integrity mailing
> list.  I have no idea if "trusted.h" should have been made public.
> 
> I'm not sure just "fixing" the MAINTAINERS file is the right
> solution.  I was hoping to look at it later this week.  Perhaps you
> and James could take a look?

Looking at the contents of linux/keys/trusted.h, it looks like the
wrong decision to move it.  The contents are way too improperly named
and duplicative to be in a standard header.  It's mostly actually TPM
code including a redefinition of the tpm_buf structure, so it doesn't
even seem to be necessary for trusted keys.

If you want to fix this as a bug, I'd move it back again, but long term
I think it should simply be combined with trusted.c because nothing
else can include it sanely anyway.

James

Powered by blists - more mailing lists