mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: jarkko@kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] keys: Fix linking a duplicate key to a keyring's assoc_array
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:49:07 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <db70b460-ae5f-5a8b-bab9-aae45ebc87d1@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2413881.1686233574@warthog.procyon.org.uk>

On 6/8/23 16:12, David Howells wrote:
> Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com> wrote:
> 
>> * Back on the first task, function construct_alloc_key() first runs
>>   __key_link_begin() to determine an assoc_array_edit operation to
>>   insert a new key. Index keys in the array are compared exactly as-is,
>>   using keyring_compare_object(). The operation finds that "abcdef" is
>>   not yet present in the destination keyring.
> 
> Good catch, but I think it's probably the wrong solution.
> 
> keyring_compare_object() needs to use the ->cmp() function from the key type.
> 
> It's not just request_key() that might have a problem, but also key_link().

The way I view the current design is that it kind of consists of two
layers. Lower-level functions key_create(), key_link(), key_move(), etc.
are built directly on top of assoc_array, use the exact comparison and
benefit from the assoc_array speed.

Higher-level function request_key() then provides a callout
functionality and offers an option to do approximate search if a needed
key is already present. This gives a trade-off to potentially reduce
a number of callouts but on the other hand requires a linear search over
the underlying keyrings/assoc_arrays.

The patch tries to only provide a point fix where the request-key logic
in construct_alloc_key() wrongly interacted with the approximate
matching option. If my understanding of the current design is correct
then I think key_link() shouldn't require any change in this regard.

Just wanted to add this point, I can't really comment on whether the
whole thing should be designed differently in the first place.

Thanks,
Petr

      parent reply	other threads:[~2023-06-09  9:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-23 13:04 Petr Pavlu
2023-03-30  0:13 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2023-06-08  9:55   ` Petr Pavlu
2023-06-08 13:18     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2023-06-08 13:28       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2023-04-21  2:39 ` joeyli
2023-06-08 14:12 ` David Howells
2023-06-08 19:03   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2023-06-09  9:49   ` Petr Pavlu [this message]

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=db70b460-ae5f-5a8b-bab9-aae45ebc87d1@suse.com \
    --to=petr.pavlu@suse.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=jarkko@kernel.org \
    --cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®