Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756800AbbLGWfw (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 17:35:52 -0500 Received: from tundra.namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:37427 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756463AbbLGWfu (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2015 17:35:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 09:35:05 +1100 (AEDT) From: James Morris To: Jarkko Sakkinen 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 In-Reply-To: <20151207091202.GA15701@intel.com> Message-ID: 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> <20151207091202.GA15701@intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1530 Lines: 45 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 -- 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/