Hi Eric,
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:40:34 -0700 Eric Biggers <ebigg...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:52:16PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:47:04 -0700 Eric Biggers <ebigg...@kernel.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:30:42PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > +static struct key_acl fsverity_acl = {
> > > > + .usage = REFCOUNT_INIT(1),
> > > > + .possessor_viewable = true,
> > >
> > > I don't think .possessor_viewable should be set here, since there's no
> > > KEY_POSSESSOR_ACE(KEY_ACE_VIEW) in the ACL. David, this bool is supposed
> > > to
> > > mean such an entry is present, right? Is it really necessary, since it's
> > > redundant with the ACL itself?
> >
> > OK, I can take that out of the patch for tomorrow.
> >
> > > Otherwise this looks good, thanks Stephen. I'll want to remove a few of
> > > these
> > > permissions in a separate patch later, but for now we can just keep it
> > > equivalent to the original code as you've done.
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
>
> Hmm, apparently it's not *exactly* equivalent, since the ACL is missing INVAL
> and JOIN permission for the owner, while those were originally granted by
> SEARCH
> permission. We don't need those, but just to keep the merge resolution itself
> as boring as possible, can you please use the following to make it equivalent:
>
> static struct key_acl fsverity_acl = {
> .usage = REFCOUNT_INIT(1),
> .nr_ace = 2,
> .aces = {
> KEY_POSSESSOR_ACE(KEY_ACE_SEARCH | KEY_ACE_JOIN |
> KEY_ACE_INVAL),
> KEY_OWNER_ACE(KEY_ACE_VIEW | KEY_ACE_READ | KEY_ACE_WRITE |
> KEY_ACE_SEARCH | KEY_ACE_SET_SECURITY |
> KEY_ACE_INVAL | KEY_ACE_REVOKE | KEY_ACE_JOIN |
> KEY_ACE_CLEAR),
> }
> };OK, I have fixed up the patch for today (not quite as above, but equivalently since I am editting a patch and I usually get that wrong :-)) -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
pgpyLPmeWzMdl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
