On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:03 PM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > So long as that ->update function:
> > 1. Deletes the old on-disk data.
> > 2. Deletes the old key from the inode.
> > 3. Generates a new key using get_random_bytes.
> > 4. Stores that new key in the inode.
> > 5. Encrypts the updated data afresh with the new key.
> > 6. Puts the updated data onto disk,
> >
> > then this is fine with me, and feel free to have my Acked-by if you
> > want. But if it doesn't do that -- i.e. if it tries to reuse the old
> > key or similar -- then this isn't fine. But it sounds like from what
> > you've described that things are actually fine, in which case, I guess
> > it makes sense to apply your patch ontop of mine and commit these.
>
> Yep. It calls big_key_destroy(), which clears away the old stuff just as when
> a key is being destroyed, then generic_key_instantiate() just as when a key is
> being set up.
>
> The key ID and the key metadata (ownership, perms, expiry) are maintained, but
> the payload is just completely replaced.
Okay, in that case, take my:
Acked-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx>
And then perhaps you can take both my patch and your addendum into keys-next.
Jason
