linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] verification: Introduce verify_umd_signature() and verify_umd_message

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: <40fbededd8dbe3b70fffb179574f344e9b0aed17.camel@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Apr 2023 13:42:45 +0200
From:   Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, dhowells@...hat.com,
        dwmw2@...radead.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        davem@...emloft.net, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org,
        yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org,
        sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, mykolal@...com,
        shuah@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] verification: Introduce verify_umd_signature()
 and verify_umd_message_sig()

On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 03:28 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Tue Apr 25, 2023 at 8:35 PM EEST, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > 
> > Introduce verify_umd_signature() and verify_umd_message_sig(), to verify
> > UMD-parsed signatures from detached data. It aims to be used by kernel
> > subsystems wishing to verify the authenticity of system data, with
> > system-defined keyrings as trust anchor.
> 
> UMD is not generic knowledge. It is a term coined up in this patch set
> so please open code it to each patch.

Yes, Linus also commented on this:

https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/CAHk-=wihqhksXHkcjuTrYmC-vajeRcNh3s6eeoJNxS7wp77dFQ@mail.gmail.com/

I will check if the full name is mentioned at least once. So far, it
seems that using umd for function names should be ok.

> One discussion points should be what these handlers should be called.
> Right now the patch set is misleads the reader to think as this was
> some kind of "official" term and set to stone.

I proposed some naming here (dependency of this patch set):

https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230317145240.363908-6-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com/

Please let me know if it sounds reasonable to you.

Thanks

Roberto