On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 03:28 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue Apr 25, 2023 at 8:35 PM EEST, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Introduce verify_umd_signature() and verify_umd_message_sig(), to verify > > UMD-parsed signatures from detached data. It aims to be used by kernel > > subsystems wishing to verify the authenticity of system data, with > > system-defined keyrings as trust anchor. > > UMD is not generic knowledge. It is a term coined up in this patch set > so please open code it to each patch. Yes, Linus also commented on this: https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/CAHk-=wihqhksXHkcjuTrYmC-vajeRcNh3s6eeoJNxS7wp77dFQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ I will check if the full name is mentioned at least once. So far, it seems that using umd for function names should be ok. > One discussion points should be what these handlers should be called. > Right now the patch set is misleads the reader to think as this was > some kind of "official" term and set to stone. I proposed some naming here (dependency of this patch set): https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230317145240.363908-6-roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Please let me know if it sounds reasonable to you. Thanks Roberto
