lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] certs: log hash value on blacklist error
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 02:59:20AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On 2022-11-28 03:11+0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > "Make blacklisted hash available in klog"
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 05:03:41AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > Without this information these logs are not actionable.
> >
> > Without blacklisted hash?
> >
> > > For example on duplicate blacklisted hashes reported by the system
> > > firmware users should be able to report the erroneous hashes to their
> > > system vendors.
> > >
> > > While we are at it use the dedicated format string for ERR_PTR.
> >
> > Lacks the beef so saying "while we are at it" makes no sense.
>
> What about this:
>
> [PATCH] certs: make blacklisted hash available in klog
>
> One common situation triggering this log statement are duplicate hashes
> reported by the system firmware.
>
> These duplicates should be removed from the firmware.
>
> Without logging the blacklisted hash triggering the issue however the users
> can not report it properly to the firmware vendors and the firmware vendors
> can not easily see which specific hash is duplicated.
>
> While changing the log message also use the dedicated ERR_PTR format
> placeholder for the returned error value.

Looks looks a lot better thank you!

> > > Fixes: 6364d106e041 ("certs: Allow root user to append signed hashes to the blacklist keyring")
> >
> > Why does this count as a bug?
>
> These error logs are confusing to users, prompting them to waste time
> investigating them and even mess with their firmware settings.
> (As indicated in the threads linked from the cover letter)
>
> The most correct fix would be patches 2 and 3 from this series.
>
> I was not sure if patch 2 would be acceptable for stable as it introduces new
> infrastructure code.
> So patch 1 enables users to report the issue to their firmware vendors and get
> the spurious logs resolved that way.
>
> If these assumptions are incorrect I can fold patch 1 into patch 3.
>
> But are patch 2 and 3 material for stable?

I cannot say anything conclusive to this before seeing updated version of
the patch set.

BR, Jarkko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-04 17:53    [W:0.036 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site