From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32207C4321E for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 06:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NN5bm3qP8z3bfw for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 17:23:00 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=benboeckel.net header.i=@benboeckel.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=k1flX33X; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=F3i2JKvW; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=benboeckel.net (client-ip=66.111.4.25; helo=out1-smtp.messagingengine.com; envelope-from=me@benboeckel.net; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=benboeckel.net header.i=@benboeckel.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=k1flX33X; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm1 header.b=F3i2JKvW; dkim-atps=neutral X-Greylist: delayed 576 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at boromir; Thu, 01 Dec 2022 14:55:52 AEDT Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NN2L016YMz30R8 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2022 14:55:52 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7DF5C00C1; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 22:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 30 Nov 2022 22:46:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=benboeckel.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1669866370; x=1669952770; bh=IE SJHOtcUSkXCEqZm4KWkM9Tzwy8cx/dN5nGJgfkLqE=; b=k1flX33XzZRRIa3rZE tsZ4vckUNst/LFgq6QK7J5TfgGd0DnaNrZ/KihsGoNY5jvS7ZMGOsVHFuex2uZex 6U/Zs/3pEQPGz/Rzy7MTuFSkW4QOb1Kso+XXy1R52xqcv4ZKFk+yzBHtzgP2NzYN NQ3f3aCDJCYpKKTe5ogNBvcuUKg3duL7IkC1mJWcMgKebpdg/CdOO496dwjQMe24 ctLKE7SlSZWWTBsC5FZ8gWMWrOth45SD+cPUqyDJfE5xb7Hr+PWF4iF2UbwWYeuS 4hiS5H2eNj3mmtV30vx1Zjo3325IUyumSfQH3RWKBMBH740l8vvkxZtEw0gDSVCm lviA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1669866370; x=1669952770; bh=IESJHOtcUSkXCEqZm4KWkM9Tzwy8 cx/dN5nGJgfkLqE=; b=F3i2JKvWwHf9O9SeM58LC+fDBrkr5Z1r3FReoTT05GhZ KtNFZkmdgyUlCJThjYgzyDjctMHRmTDb145k9/Zt6BiuC0MuZOyJs4MFMSLTQFNv 0uU3JQpdO/5xZ9HHkLjkZ9KWgweSMcUKHGajlhIsq29uzv6jQpVgLa1XKQBXYqYF svXG4zMkm8NbHwB+2AgsYpeo6BfsvRdHpfu5Gvh6cEIDuaUoXpuLiOD1DwaMBhrV ReXnbXFIHtfDPMQLTPG8bhwXENWvBgjYQIu+GcyBmRsTCSWqbnqZLBMiWTXiNs5F 9hmeWLA8bYC1/CNNyQvjgixT5SK5gD1FqJSCPpJ9VA== X-ME-Sender:

X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrtdeggdeigecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjfgesthdtredttderjeenucfhrhhomhepuegvnhcu uehovggtkhgvlhcuoehmvgessggvnhgsohgvtghkvghlrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeffleegffevleekffekheeigfdtleeuvddtgffhtddvfefgjeehffduueevkedv vdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmvg essggvnhgsohgvtghkvghlrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy:

Feedback-ID: iffc1478b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 30 Nov 2022 22:46:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 22:46:09 -0500 From: Ben Boeckel To: Greg Joyce Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] block: sed-opal: keyring support for SED keys Message-ID: References: <20221129232506.3735672-1-gjoyce@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20221129232506.3735672-4-gjoyce@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <2133c00e5e7c53c458dbb709204c955bac8bee88.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2133c00e5e7c53c458dbb709204c955bac8bee88.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.7 (2022-08-07) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 01 Dec 2022 17:22:05 +1100 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, nayna@linux.ibm.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke , jonathan.derrick@linux.dev, brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, msuchanek@suse.de, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:19:25 -0600, Greg Joyce wrote: > On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 08:00 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > On 11/30/22 00:25, gjoyce@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote: > > > + case OPAL_KEYRING: > > > + /* the key is in the keyring */ > > > + ret = read_sed_opal_key(OPAL_AUTH_KEY, key->key, > > > OPAL_KEY_MAX); > > > + if (ret > 0) { > > > + if (ret > 255) { > > > > Why is a key longer than 255 an error? > > If this is a requirement, why not move the check into > > read_sed_opal_key() such that one only has to check for > > ret < 0 on errors? > > The check is done here because the SED Opal spec stipulates 255 as the > maximum key length. The key length (key->key_len) in the existing data > structures is __u8, so a length greater than 255 can not be conveyed. > For defensive purposes, I though it best to check here. Perhaps naming it `OPAL_MAX_KEY_LEN` would help clarify this? --Ben