Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy

[James Morris]

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@xxxxxxxxx>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/