linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KEYS: trusted: correctly initialize digests and fix locking issue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0220e8a41b62cc169b21fe9e2e58467a43232e53.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 07 Sep 2019 22:03:30 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, zohar@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, silviu.vlasceanu@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KEYS: trusted: correctly initialize digests and fix
 locking issue

On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 22:02 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-09-04 at 20:50 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > This patch fixes two issues introduced with commit 0b6cf6b97b7e ("tpm: pass
> > an array of tpm_extend_digest structures to tpm_pcr_extend()").
> > 
> > It initializes the algorithm in init_digests() for trusted keys, and moves
> > the algorithm check in tpm_pcr_extend() before locks are taken in
> > tpm_find_get_ops().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > Fixes: 0b6cf6b97b7e ("tpm: pass an array of tpm_extend_digest structures to tpm_pcr_extend()")
> > ---
> 
> The changelog is missing. You should place it right after these three
> dashes before diffstat. So, why did you do v2?
> 
> I don't see any description of the two issues. The commit messages
> goes on explaining right away what this patch does. Would be nice
> to have one paragraph describing both of the issues at first before
> striving into solutions.
> 
> Also, the granularity should be one patch per one issue so this will
> require two patches in total.

Actually taking my words back as far as the last paragraph goes. Since
the fixes tag is the same I'm cool with one patch as long as the commit
message describes better what you're doing and why.

/Jarkko