From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
To: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, pjones@redhat.com, tadeusz.struk@intel.com,
marcel@holtmann.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KEYS: Provide keyctls to do public key operations
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:33:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <17643.1460806407@warthog.procyon.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1604151411220.7434@gregoryb-fedora.amr.corp.intel.com>
Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > The interface for the active ops is a bit clunky as the syscall interface
> > doesn't provide sufficient argument space to pass everything I need to
> > specify. Some basic integer arguments are specified in a struct and more
> > complex options through a string of key=val pairs - just so I don't have to
> > deal with the compat code for dealing with a struct containing pointers
> > (but I can change to that if it's preferable).
>
> It sounds like the struct would still have pointers to strings that would
> need parsing,
It doesn't:
struct keyctl_pkey_params {
__s32 key_id;
__s32 password_id;
__u32 data_len;
__u32 enc_len;
__u32 __spare[4];
};
because I have sufficient syscall arguments to pass four pointers - the struct
above, one info string and two buffer pointers.
> so I'm not sure it's that much overhead to handle the short
> strings of key=val pairs. But I'll agree that it feels clunky.
... fixes applied ...
> > + info->supported_ops = KEYCTL_SUPPORTS_VERIFY;
>
> Did you intend to include encrypt/decrypt/sign here?
When they're implemented there.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-16 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-14 22:00 David Howells
2016-04-15 18:49 ` Tadeusz Struk
2016-04-15 22:00 ` David Howells
2016-04-15 22:07 ` Mat Martineau
2016-04-16 11:33 ` David Howells [this message]
2016-04-16 11:36 ` [RFC PATCH] KEYS: Provide keyctls to do public key operations [ver #2] David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=17643.1460806407@warthog.procyon.org.uk \
--to=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com \
--cc=pjones@redhat.com \
--cc=tadeusz.struk@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome