lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy
    On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:

    > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:34:35PM +1100, James Morris wrote:
    > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > >
    > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:21:01AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
    > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > }
    > > > > > break;
    > > > > > + case Opt_policydigest:
    > > > > > + if (!tpm2 ||
    > > > > > + strlen(args[0].from) != (2 * opt->digest_len))
    > > > > > + return -EINVAL;
    > > > > > + kfree(opt->policydigest);
    > > > > > + opt->policydigest = kzalloc(opt->digest_len,
    > > > > > + GFP_KERNEL);
    > > > >
    > > > > Is it correct to kfree opt->policydigest here before allocating it?
    > > >
    > > > I think so. The same option might be encountered multiple times.
    > >
    > > This would surely signify an error?
    >
    > I'm following the semantics of other options. That's why I implemented
    > it that way for example:
    >
    > keyctl add trusted kmk "new 32 keyhandle=0x80000000 keyhandle=0x80000000"
    >
    > is perfectly OK. I just thought that it'd be more odd if this option
    > behaved in a different way...

    It seems broken to me -- if you're messing up keyctl commands you might
    want to know about it, but we should remain consistent.


    --
    James Morris
    <jmorris@namei.org>



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-12-08 00:01    [W:5.222 / U:0.756 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site