linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/8] certs: Introduce ability to link to a system 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <CZRVET5930A0.3KM5Q2BAH05LT@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:18:45 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Eric Snowberg" <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>
Cc: "open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM" <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
 "David Howells" <dhowells@...hat.com>, "David Woodhouse"
 <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "herbert@...dor.apana.org.au"
 <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>, "paul@...l-moore.com"
 <paul@...l-moore.com>, "jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
 "serge@...lyn.com" <serge@...lyn.com>, "zohar@...ux.ibm.com"
 <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, "roberto.sassu@...wei.com"
 <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, "dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com"
 <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>, "mic@...ikod.net" <mic@...ikod.net>,
 "casey@...aufler-ca.com" <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, "stefanb@...ux.ibm.com"
 <stefanb@...ux.ibm.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "keyrings@...r.kernel.org"
 <keyrings@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-efi@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org"
 <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/8] certs: Introduce ability to link to a system
 key

On Mon Mar 11, 2024 at 11:31 PM EET, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 2024, at 1:18 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon Mar 11, 2024 at 6:11 PM EET, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> >> + return -1;
> > 
> > Missed this one: why a magic number?
>
> Good point, I'll change this to return -ENOKEY.  Thanks.

Either that or a boolean function, which ever fits to the overall
flow better... The upside of error code is less branching in the call
sites. The upside of boolean is that caller exactly knows all the
values that ever should come out as a result.

Your choice ofc.

BR, Jarkko