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
prev 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®