Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] keys: add KEY_SPEC_DM_VERITY_KEYRING

[Andrew Halaney]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 09:44:46PM +0000, bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > keys: add KEY_SPEC_DM_VERITY_KEYRING
> 
> TL;DR: Design/uapi question: was David Howells' v1 suggestion (reserved
> negative key ID block, common register functions) intentionally dropped? The
> new uapi value -10 should be settled before release.
> 
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/keyctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/keyctl.h
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/keyctl.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/keyctl.h
> > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >  #define KEY_SPEC_REQKEY_AUTH_KEY	-7	/* - key ID for assumed request_key auth key */
> >  #define KEY_SPEC_REQUESTOR_KEYRING	-8	/* - key ID for request_key() dest keyring */
> >  #define KEY_SPEC_BPF_KEYRING		-9	/* - key ID for the BPF-specific keyring */
> > +#define KEY_SPEC_DM_VERITY_KEYRING	-10	/* - key ID for the .dm-verity keyring */
> 
> On v1, David Howells wrote:
> 
>   I have no particular objection to setting aside a block of negative key
>   IDs for special keyrings that need to be accessed a lot - though I would
>   make common reg/unreg functions that take the ID to be registered and,
>   say, set the block at -257..-512.  Moving the BFP keyring to -257 and
>   DM to -258.
> 
>   (<715249.1789718726@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
> 
> The question of whether this was being asked for v2 was raised in reply, but
> there was no answer, and this version still continues the one-off -9/-10
> sequence with a dm-verity specific key_register_dm_verity_keyring() and
> dm_verity_keyring_lock.
> 
> Was the suggestion to use a reserved ID block with common register and
> unregister functions intentionally dropped, or should it still be addressed?
> 
> Since KEY_SPEC_DM_VERITY_KEYRING is a UAPI value, would it be possible to
> settle this before the -10 value is released?
> 

With the BPF keyring ID already being merged here in bpf-next, plus
Jarkko's feedback/RB, I continued following the current pattern instead of
walking back the BPF keyring ID, and dealing with the
builtin/module/rodata differences I alluded to that would make that
approach a little more annoying (at least with how I thought it thru).

> 
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
> 
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/37844805282