Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 12:39:32 -0500
From:   Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>
To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] certs: Explain the rationale to call panic()
Message-ID: <20220322173932.GB7173@sequoia>
References: <20220322111323.542184-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <20220322111323.542184-2-mic@digikod.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220322111323.542184-2-mic@digikod.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-03-22 12:13:23, Micka?l Sala?n wrote:
> From: Micka?l Sala?n <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
> 
> The blacklist_init() function calls panic() for memory allocation
> errors.  This change documents the reason why we don't return -ENODEV.
> 
> Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> [1]
> Requested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> [1]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YjeW2r6Wv55Du0bJ@iki.fi [1]
> Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Micka?l Sala?n <mic@linux.microsoft.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220322111323.542184-2-mic@digikod.net

Reviewed-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>

Tyler

> ---
> 
> Changes since v1:
> * Fix commit subject spelling spotted by David Woodhouse.
> * Reword one sentence as suggested by Paul Moore.
> * Add Reviewed-by Paul Moore.
> * Add Reviewed-by Jarkko Sakkinen.
> ---
>  certs/blacklist.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/certs/blacklist.c b/certs/blacklist.c
> index 486ce0dd8e9c..25094ea73600 100644
> --- a/certs/blacklist.c
> +++ b/certs/blacklist.c
> @@ -307,6 +307,15 @@ static int restrict_link_for_blacklist(struct key *dest_keyring,
>  
>  /*
>   * Initialise the blacklist
> + *
> + * The blacklist_init() function is registered as an initcall via
> + * device_initcall().  As a result if the blacklist_init() function fails for
> + * any reason the kernel continues to execute.  While cleanly returning -ENODEV
> + * could be acceptable for some non-critical kernel parts, if the blacklist
> + * keyring fails to load it defeats the certificate/key based deny list for
> + * signed modules.  If a critical piece of security functionality that users
> + * expect to be present fails to initialize, panic()ing is likely the right
> + * thing to do.
>   */
>  static int __init blacklist_init(void)
>  {
> -- 
> 2.35.1
>