On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:42 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > n Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 07:44:39AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 03:21:31PM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > On Sat, 2015-10-24 at 15:42 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > Added 'hashalg=' option for selecting the hash algorithm. > > > > > > > > Currently available options are: > > > > > > > > * sha1 > > > > * sha256 > > > > * sha384 > > > > * sha512 > > > > * sm3_256 > > > > > > Please consider using crypto/hash_info.c: hash_algo_name[], which > > > already define the algorithm string names. Use > > > include/crypto/hash_info.c to include a reference to this array. > > > > It wold work for me. I did ad-hoc because first example that I looked > > at was EcryptFS.
After EVM, EcryptFS was the first subsystem to use trusted keys. Support for larger digests was later added to IMA. > > I need to add sm3_256 to that array. Unless there is kernel crypto support for this algorithm, I would conditionally include the algorithm, probably based on a Kconfig option. > > I've found three different ways to write it: > > > > * sm3256 (various google hits) > > * sm3-256 (various google hits) > > * sm3_256 (TPM 2.0 Structures specification) > > > > Maybe the second option would be the most appropriate? Right, If there aren't any standards, use the second option for the string and an underscore for the variable name. > > > Boot command line options should be prefixed with the subsystem name. > > > So instead of hashalg, please use tpm_hashalg. The boot command line > > > option needs to be documented in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt. > > > > I see. My commit message is clearly inadequate. It's an option for the > > keyring syscalls. Sorry for the misunderstanding. > BTW, in IMA I see you have the hash algorithm as a boot parameter. I > guess it makes sense there because it works implicitly in the > background? The default hash algorithm is defined using the Kconfig IMA_DEFAULT_HASH option, but can be specified on the boot command line using "ima_hash=". > Sealing a trusted key is an explicit operation. That's why I thought > it'd be better to have it as an option for the syscall. Does this logic > make sense to your or not? It does. > > PS. Hey one more thing: this was supposed to be RFC, forgot to add > --subject-prefix="PATCH RFC". Sorry about that. :) Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
