On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 06:56:17PM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:24 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 01:01:02PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:35:05AM +1100, James Morris wrote: > > > > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 01:34:35PM +1100, James Morris wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:21:01AM +1100, James Morris wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > break; > > > > > > > > > + case Opt_policydigest: > > > > > > > > > + if (!tpm2 || > > > > > > > > > + strlen(args[0].from) != (2 * opt->digest_len)) > > > > > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > + kfree(opt->policydigest); > > > > > > > > > + opt->policydigest = kzalloc(opt->digest_len, > > > > > > > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > You're allocating the exact amount of storage needed. There's no reason > to use kzalloc here or elsewhere in the patch. Yup. I'll change this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it correct to kfree opt->policydigest here before allocating it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think so. The same option might be encountered multiple times. > > > > > > > > > > > > This would surely signify an error? > > > > > > > > > > I'm following the semantics of other options. That's why I implemented > > > > > it that way for example: > > > > > > > > > > keyctl add trusted kmk "new 32 keyhandle=0x80000000 keyhandle=0x80000000" > > > > > > > > > > is perfectly OK. I just thought that it'd be more odd if this option > > > > > behaved in a different way... > > > > > > > > It seems broken to me -- if you're messing up keyctl commands you might > > > > want to know about it, but we should remain consistent. > > > > > > So should I return error if policyhandle/digest appears a second time? I > > > agree that it'd be better to return -EINVAL. > > > > > > The existing behavior is such that any option can appear multiple times > > > and I chose to be consistent with that. > > > > Mimi, David? > > I don't have a problem with changing the existing behavior to allow the > options to be specified only once. I don't think this patch is right place to change the behavior as it should be done for other options too. > BTW, you might want to fail the getoptions() parsing earlier, rather > than waiting until after the while loop to test "policydigest_len != > opt->digest_len". In both Opt_hash and Opt_policydigest you can check > to see if the other option has already been specified. Agreed. > Mimi /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
