Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 20:33:11 -0600
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>
To: David Howells <>
Cc:, LKML <>, 
	Andy Lutomirski <>, Greg KH <>, 
	Linus Torvalds <>,, 
	Eric Biggers <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] security/keys: rewrite big_key crypto to use library interface

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:03 PM David Howells <> wrote:
> Jason A. Donenfeld <> wrote:
> > So long as that ->update function:
> > 1. Deletes the old on-disk data.
> > 2. Deletes the old key from the inode.
> > 3. Generates a new key using get_random_bytes.
> > 4. Stores that new key in the inode.
> > 5. Encrypts the updated data afresh with the new key.
> > 6. Puts the updated data onto disk,
> >
> > then this is fine with me, and feel free to have my Acked-by if you
> > want. But if it doesn't do that -- i.e. if it tries to reuse the old
> > key or similar -- then this isn't fine. But it sounds like from what
> > you've described that things are actually fine, in which case, I guess
> > it makes sense to apply your patch ontop of mine and commit these.
> Yep.  It calls big_key_destroy(), which clears away the old stuff just as when
> a key is being destroyed, then generic_key_instantiate() just as when a key is
> being set up.
> The key ID and the key metadata (ownership, perms, expiry) are maintained, but
> the payload is just completely replaced.

Okay, in that case, take my:

    Acked-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <>

And then perhaps you can take both my patch and your addendum into keys-next.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.