Re: [PATCH v6 4/4] certs: Adjustment due to 'Check whether openssl tool is available'

[Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>]

On 6/15/21 9:06 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 03:28:56PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 6/14/21 3:23 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 08:56:23AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>> Adjust the previous patch due to fixes applied to the first patch
>>>> in the series.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 46449892e6e5 ("certs: Add support for using elliptic curve keys for signing modules")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@linux.ibm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    certs/Makefile | 5 +++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/certs/Makefile b/certs/Makefile
>>>> index dc9f354dd5f8..4eb69bdadc79 100644
>>>> --- a/certs/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/certs/Makefile
>>>> @@ -66,16 +66,21 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY),"certs/signing_key.pem")
>>>>    ifeq ($(openssl_available),yes)
>>>>    X509TEXT=$(shell openssl x509 -in $(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY) -text)
>>>> +endif
>>>>    # Support user changing key type
>>>>    ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY_TYPE_ECDSA
>>>>    keytype_openssl = -newkey ec -pkeyopt ec_paramgen_curve:secp384r1
>>>> +ifeq ($(openssl_available),yes)
>>>>    $(if $(findstring id-ecPublicKey,$(X509TEXT)),,$(shell rm -f $(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY)))
>>>>    endif
>>>> +endif # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY_TYPE_ECDSA
>>>>    ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY_TYPE_RSA
>>>> +ifeq ($(openssl_available),yes)
>>>>    $(if $(findstring rsaEncryption,$(X509TEXT)),,$(shell rm -f $(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY)))
>>>>    endif
>>>> +endif # CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY_TYPE_RSA
>>>>    $(obj)/signing_key.pem: $(obj)/x509.genkey
>>>>    	@$(kecho) "###"
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.29.2
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Please check that they are applied correctly, thanks.
>> No, they are not applied correctly. 2/2 shows this here:
>>
>>
>>   ifeq ($(openssl_available),yes)
>>   X509TEXT=$(shell openssl x509 -in $(CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_KEY) -text)
>> +endif
>> +
>>
>>
>> This endif is in 2/4 in v6 and should appear on your git in 1/2. How did it
>> get into 2/2?
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/6/10/493
> I assumed that the two other commits are exact same as in v4 because
> appropriate tags were mssing.

What's in your git repo now looks good.


     Stefan

>
> /Jarkko