Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto+bounces-4317-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 01:45:13 +0300
Message-Id: <D1FOQSFNZ794.23R2JV1SD8X8W@kernel.org>
Cc: "Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
 <linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org>, <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
 <Andreas.Fuchs@infineon.com>, "James Prestwood" <prestwoj@gmail.com>,
 "David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@infradead.org>, "Eric Biggers"
 <ebiggers@kernel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, "open
 list:CRYPTO API" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>, "open list"
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>, "Jason
 Gunthorpe" <jgg@ziepe.ca>, "Mimi Zohar" <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, "Paul Moore"
 <paul@paul-moore.com>, "James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>, "Serge E.
 Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, "open list:SECURITY SUBSYSTEM"
 <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] KEYS: trusted: Move tpm2_key_decode() to the TPM
 driver
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: "James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>, "David
 Howells" <dhowells@redhat.com>
References: <D1FMVEJWGLEW.14QGHPAYPHQG1@kernel.org>
 <20240521031645.17008-1-jarkko@kernel.org>
 <20240521031645.17008-5-jarkko@kernel.org>
 <cc3d952f8295b52b052fbffe009b796ffb45707a.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <336755.1716327854@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <239a52eb5ed3a6c891382b63d08fe7b264850d38.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
In-Reply-To: <239a52eb5ed3a6c891382b63d08fe7b264850d38.camel@HansenPartnership.com>

On Wed May 22, 2024 at 12:59 AM EEST, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 22:44 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >=20
> > > On Tue May 21, 2024 at 9:18 PM EEST, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > ...
> > > You don't save a single byte of memory with any constant that
> > > dictates the size requirements for multiple modules in two disjoint
> > > subsystems.
> >=20
> > I think James is just suggesting you replace your limit argument with
> > a constant not that you always allocate that amount of memory.
>
> Exactly.  All we use it for is the -E2BIG check to ensure user space
> isn't allowed to run away with loads of kernel memory.

Not true.

It did return -EINVAL. This patch changes it to -E2BIG.

>
> > What the limit should be, OTOH, is up for discussion, but PAGE_SIZE
> > seems not unreasonable.
>
> A page is fine currently (MAX_BLOB_SIZE is 512).  However, it may be
> too small for some of the complex policies when they're introduced.=20
> I'm not bothered about what it currently is, I just want it to be able
> to be increased easily when the time comes.

MAX_BLOB_SIZE would be used to cap key blob, not the policy.

And you are ignoring it yourself too in the driver.


> James


BR, Jarkko