On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 13:42 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote: > 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. Also: "UMD-based parser for the asymmetric key type" It is a tautology: UMD is based on parser which based on UMD. I.e. makes no sense. Everyone hates three letter acronyms so I would consider not inventing a new one out of the void. So the corrective step would be to rename Kconfig flags as USER_ASYMMETRIC_KEY_PARSER and USER_ASYMMETRIC_SIGNATURE_PARSER. BR, Jarkko
