[1/2] Replace magic for trusting the secondary keyring with #define

Commit Message

David Howells Aug. 16, 2018, 1:05 p.m. UTC

From: Yannik Sembritzki <[e-mail]>

Replace the use of a magic number that indicates that verify_*_signature()
should use the secondary keyring with a symbol.

Signed-off-by: Yannik Sembritzki <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <[e-mail]>
cc: [e-mail]
cc: [e-mail]
---

 certs/system_keyring.c                  |    3 ++-
 crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c |    2 +-
 include/linux/verification.h            |    6 ++++++
 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

David Howells Aug. 16, 2018, 1:15 p.m. UTC | #1

Hi Yannik,

I would suggest something like that.  I've switched the patches over as has
been suggested.  I think it makes more sense to create the constant first and
then use that.

I've also fleshed out the patch description a bit and added cc and Fixes
fields as appropriate.

David

Yannik Sembritzki Aug. 16, 2018, 1:17 p.m. UTC | #2

On 16.08.2018 15:15, David Howells wrote:
> I would suggest something like that.  I've switched the patches over as has
> been suggested.  I think it makes more sense to create the constant first and
> then use that.
>
> I've also fleshed out the patch description a bit and added cc and Fixes
> fields as appropriate.

Thanks, that looks good to me.
I see that you only cc'd stable@ in the (now) second patch. I'm curious,
will this automatically apply the first patch to stable?

Yannik

Greg KH Aug. 16, 2018, 3:12 p.m. UTC | #3

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 03:17:47PM +0200, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
> On 16.08.2018 15:15, David Howells wrote:
> > I would suggest something like that.  I've switched the patches over as has
> > been suggested.  I think it makes more sense to create the constant first and
> > then use that.
> >
> > I've also fleshed out the patch description a bit and added cc and Fixes
> > fields as appropriate.
> 
> Thanks, that looks good to me.
> I see that you only cc'd stable@ in the (now) second patch. I'm curious,
> will this automatically apply the first patch to stable?

No, but I'll try to remember to do it in order to get it right :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Patch

diff --git a/certs/system_keyring.c b/certs/system_keyring.c
index 6251d1b27f0c..81728717523d 100644
--- a/certs/system_keyring.c
+++ b/certs/system_keyring.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ 
 #include <linux/cred.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/verification.h>
 #include <keys/asymmetric-type.h>
 #include <keys/system_keyring.h>
 #include <crypto/pkcs7.h>
@@ -230,7 +231,7 @@  int verify_pkcs7_signature(const void *data, size_t len,
 
 	if (!trusted_keys) {
 		trusted_keys = builtin_trusted_keys;
-	} else if (trusted_keys == (void *)1UL) {
+	} else if (trusted_keys == VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_SECONDARY_TRUSTED_KEYRING
 		trusted_keys = secondary_trusted_keys;
 #else
diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c
index e284d9cb9237..5b2f6a2b5585 100644
--- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c
+++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/pkcs7_key_type.c
@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@  static int pkcs7_preparse(struct key_preparsed_payload *prep)
 
 	return verify_pkcs7_signature(NULL, 0,
 				      prep->data, prep->datalen,
-				      (void *)1UL, usage,
+				      VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING, usage,
 				      pkcs7_view_content, prep);
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/verification.h b/include/linux/verification.h
index a10549a6c7cd..cfa4730d607a 100644
--- a/include/linux/verification.h
+++ b/include/linux/verification.h
@@ -12,6 +12,12 @@ 
 #ifndef _LINUX_VERIFICATION_H
 #define _LINUX_VERIFICATION_H
 
+/*
+ * Indicate that both builtin trusted keys and secondary trusted keys
+ * should be used.
+ */
+#define VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING ((struct key *)1UL)
+
 /*
  * The use to which an asymmetric key is being put.
  */