linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/pseries: Correct secvar format representation for static key management

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: <f950789abaad0e854c4e60c7316b675c712c386f.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 16:03:57 +1000
From: Andrew Donnellan <ajd@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>, Srish Srinivasan
 <ssrish@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: maddy@...ux.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com,
        christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, naveen@...nel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/pseries: Correct secvar format
 representation for static key management

On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 15:27 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
> 
> > It might be better to use something like "ibm,plpks-sb-static" in
> > place
> > of "ibm,plpks-sb-v0" to make it instantly clear that static mode
> > doesn't use the same version numbering scheme as dynamic mode.
> 
> Yes, "ibm,plpks-sb-static" is more clear compared to "ibm,plpks-sb-
> v0".  
> However, I am not sure why "static mode doesn't use the same version 
> numbering scheme as dynamic mode". Infact, as per my understanding, 
> it 
> is part of same versioning system. "0 represent static, 1 represent 
> dynamic and anything beyond 1 would mean dynamic with additional
> features".
> 
> Also, wouldn't having "ibm,pkpks-sb-static" and then "ibm,pkpk-sb-v1"
> for dynamic would be bit confusing? I mean being static is clear, but
> what they relate v1 to? Or did you mean to have "ibm,plpks-sb-static"
> and "ibm,plpks-sb-dynamic"  for the two modes?
> 

I don't feel strongly about this, as long as it's well documented.

-- 
Andrew Donnellan    OzLabs, ADL Canberra
ajd@...ux.ibm.com   IBM Australia Limited