linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] keys: asymmetric: fix error return code in software_key

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:42:25 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] keys: asymmetric: fix error return code in software_key_query()

Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> Why f1774cb8956a lacked any possible testing? It extends ABI anyway.
> 
> I think it is a kind of change that would require more screening before
> getting applied.

Yeah.  It went in via a round-about route.  I left off development of it when
the tpm stuff I wrote broke because the tpm2 stuff went in upstream.  I then
handed the patches off to Denis who did the tpm support, but I never got my
stuff finished enough to work out how to do the testsuite (since it would
involve using a tpm).  However, since I did the PKCS#8 testing module as well,
I guess I don't need that to at least test the API.  I'll look at using that
to add some tests.  Any suggestions as to how to do testing via the tpm?

David