On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:46:22PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 11:35:07AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 2:30 PM David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Here's my fourth block of keyrings changes for the next merge window. They > > > change the permissions model used by keys and keyrings to be based on an > > > internal ACL by the following means: > > > > It turns out that this is broken, and I'll probably have to revert the > > merge entirely. > > > > With this merge in place, I can't boot any of the machines that have > > an encrypted disk setup. The boot just stops at > > > > systemd[1]: Started Forward Password Requests to Plymouth Directory Watch. > > systemd[1]: Reached target Paths. > > > > and never gets any further. I never get the prompt for a passphrase > > for the disk encryption. > > > > Apparently not a lot of developers are using encrypted volumes for > > their development machines. > > > > I'm not sure if the only requirement is an encrypted volume, or if > > this is also particular to a F30 install in case you need to be able > > to reproduce. But considering that you have a redhat email address, > > I'm sure you can find a F30 install somewhere with an encrypted disk. > > > > David, if you can fix this quickly, I'll hold off on the revert of it > > all, but I can wait only so long. I've stopped merging stuff since I > > noticed my machines don't work (this merge window has not been > > pleasant so far - in addition to this issue I had another entirely > > unrelated boot failure which made bisecting this one even more fun). > > > > So if I don't see a quick fix, I'll just revert in order to then > > continue to do pull requests later today. Because I do not want to do > > further pulls with something that I can't boot as a base. > > > > Linus > > This also broke 'keyctl new_session' and hence all the fscrypt tests > (https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/20190710011559.GA7973@sol.localdomain/), and it > also broke loading in-kernel X.509 certificates > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/27671.1562384658@turing-police/T/#u). > > I'm *guessing* these are all some underlying issue where keyrings aren't being > given all the needed permissions anymore. > > But just FYI, David had said he's on vacation with no laptop or email access for > 2 weeks starting from Sunday (3 days ago). So I don't think you can expect a > quick fix from him. > > I was planning to look into this to fix the fscrypt tests, but it might be a few > days before I get to it. And while I'm *guessing* it will be a simple fix, it > might not be. So I can't speak for David, but personally I'm fine with the > commits being reverted for now. > > I'm also unhappy that the new keyctl KEYCTL_GRANT_PERMISSION doesn't have any > documentation or tests. (Which seems to be a common problem with David's > work... None of the new mount syscalls in v5.2 have any tests, for example, and > the man pages are still work-in-progress and last sent out for review a year > ago, despite API changes that occurred before the syscalls were merged.) > Also worth noting that the key ACL patches were only in linux-next for 9 days before the pull request was sent. The X.509 certificate loading bug (which might be the same underlying bug) was reported on July 6 by someone testing linux-next, but the pull request had already been sent on July 5. I suspect these bug(s) would have been fixed if they had been in linux-next for longer. - Eric
