linux-kernel - Re: Bad file pattern in MAINTAINERS section 'KEYS-TRUSTED'

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: <c7f70a06-65a5-a1cd-69c5-dae7567b851f@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:59:40 -0500
From:   Denis Kenzior <denkenz@...il.com>
To:     James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        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>,
        Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
        James Morris <james.morris@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Bad file pattern in MAINTAINERS section 'KEYS-TRUSTED'

Hi James,

On 03/26/2019 09:25 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> 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.
The reason this was done was because asym_tpm.c needed a bunch of the 
same functionality already provided by trusted.c, e.g. TSS_authmac and 
friends.

> 
> 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.

Ideally I'd like to see the TPM subsystem expose these functions using 
some proper API / library abstraction.  David Howells had an RFC patch 
set that tried to address some of this a while back.  Not sure if that 
went anywhere.

Regards,
-Denis