Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755595AbbLGJML (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:12:11 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:35487 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754491AbbLGJMI (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 04:12:08 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,394,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="855442414" Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 11:12:02 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: James Morris Cc: Peter Huewe , Marcel Selhorst , David Howells , Mimi Zohar , Jonathan Corbet , Jason Gunthorpe , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" , "open list:KEYS-ENCRYPTED" , "open list:KEYS-ENCRYPTED" , "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , open list , "moderated list:TPM DEVICE DRIVER" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy Message-ID: <20151207091202.GA15701@intel.com> References: <1447777643-10777-1-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <1447777643-10777-3-git-send-email-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> <20151118070339.GA4942@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1311 Lines: 40 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... > -- > James Morris > /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/