Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-12 Thread David Howells
Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > I'm sure there is/was a good reason for add_key() to do both. > > > > Yes. No race. > > > > > > But you can't pre-search for the existence of a key and mould the > > > > payload accordingly because that means you can race against both > > > > add_key() and keyctl_unlink

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-11 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 22:34 +, David Howells wrote: > Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > Further, the existence of encrypted_update() means that add_key() will > > > sometimes get things wrong with encrypted keys (add_key() will call > > > ->update() if a matching key already exists rather than creati

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-11 Thread David Howells
Mimi Zohar wrote: > > The control op could also be used for other things like pushing a key > > into a TPM. > > > > What do you think? > > Trusted keys already creates a symmetric key based on the TPM RNG. > What type of key would I be interested in pushing to the TPM? What > usecase scenari

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-11 Thread David Howells
Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Further, the existence of encrypted_update() means that add_key() will > > sometimes get things wrong with encrypted keys (add_key() will call > > ->update() if a matching key already exists rather than creating a new > > key). > > I see. The key_type structure defines a n

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-11 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 16:22 +, David Howells wrote: > > The control op could also be used for other things like pushing a key > into a TPM. > > What do you think? Trusted keys already creates a symmetric key based on the TPM RNG. What type of key would I be interested in pushing to the TPM?

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-11 Thread Mimi Zohar
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 16:22 +, David Howells wrote: > Hi Mimi, Dmitry, > > Here's a series of patches, the last three of which attempt to fix up a > problem with encrypted keys update method. The preceding patches are fixes or > are preparatory for other changes that I want to put underneath

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-06 Thread David Howells
Dmitry Kasatkin wrote: > I will be looking to patches today... Excellent, thanks! David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read

Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-06 Thread Dmitry Kasatkin
Hello David, I will be looking to patches today... - Dmitry On 04/11/13 18:22, David Howells wrote: > Hi Mimi, Dmitry, > > Here's a series of patches, the last three of which attempt to fix up a > problem with encrypted keys update method. The preceding patches are fixes or > are preparatory fo

[RFC][PATCH 0/9] encrypted keys & key control op

2013-11-04 Thread David Howells
Hi Mimi, Dmitry, Here's a series of patches, the last three of which attempt to fix up a problem with encrypted keys update method. The preceding patches are fixes or are preparatory for other changes that I want to put underneath. I really want to make all key types use ->preparse() to avoid a