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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > 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
