Re: [PATCH 2/2] keys, trusted: seal with a policy

[Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>]

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