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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E15C433E0 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A7864EDB for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234623AbhBXMlr (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:41:47 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:30925 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233165AbhBXMln (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:41:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1614170417; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6EZ7KLEv3f4muyBgg157B8HXJbUua7sKn+XXr3ZDJJA=; b=HWxv5vSotY7fy+6ZNGjJFP0zeUodpudUCE2YYulHtkb8YjHAsJ6J5WAlpbG2hinDpU8CUy fOFKHVNC04qU8NdtiocpopKOYl71uS6PvVIpNi/1qXPL4TO5lByS2A/F6dImClY6f/lfmp MERdlc1aKv5tPDNqPoJx8bnnHsH+1ks= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-542-37emOvHfNWqbgD09ybzS-g-1; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:40:15 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 37emOvHfNWqbgD09ybzS-g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE09C835E20; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:40:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (ovpn-119-68.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.119.68]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561B95D6A8; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <30122760-0492-1f32-cb37-7d2f84560cab@digikod.net> References: <30122760-0492-1f32-cb37-7d2f84560cab@digikod.net> <20210217165058.1336155-1-eric.snowberg@oracle.com> <3524595.1614124044@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <3731128.1614163916@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3FUTF-8=3FQ=3FMicka=3Dc3=3Dabl=5FSala=3Dc3=3Dbcn=3F?= =?us-ascii?Q?=3D?= Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Eric Snowberg , Jarkko Sakkinen , =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3FUTF-8=3FQ=3FMicka=3Dc3=3Dabl?= =?us-ascii?Q?=5FSala=3Dc3=3Dbcn=3F=3D?= , David Woodhouse , keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cert: Add kconfig dependency for validate_trust MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:40:10 +0000 Message-ID: <3739954.1614170410@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.15 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Micka=C3=ABl Sala=C3=BCn wrote: > > +config SYSTEM_REVOCATION_LIST > > + bool "Provide system-wide ring of revocation certificates" > > + depends on SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_KEYRING > > + depends on PKCS7_MESSAGE_PARSER=3Dy >=20 > The function verify_pkcs7_message_sig() (which is patched) is only > available if CONFIG_SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION is defined. That shouldn't matter, at least from a building point of view, since verify_pkcs7_message_sig() uses the new facility rather than being a dependency of it - and there's a fallback in place in case you don't want SYSTEM_REVOCATION_LIST. Note that SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION also doesn't depend on or select SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_KEYRING - it will use it if it's enabl= ed, but not otherwise. > I suggest to use the same dependencies as for my dynamic authenticated > blacklist keyring patchset. This, you mean? config SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_AUTH_UPDATE bool "Allow root to add signed blacklist keys" depends on SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_KEYRING depends on SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION I.e.: config SYSTEM_REVOCATION_LIST bool "Provide system-wide ring of revocation certificates" depends on SYSTEM_BLACKLIST_KEYRING depends on SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION depends on PKCS7_MESSAGE_PARSER=3Dy I suppose you could argue the it that way since it's only used for that purpose. Note that it does need the PKCS7 dep since it explicitly uses that code. > Could you please not move those functions? It makes the patch more > readable and avoids merge conflicts (e.g. with the dynamic authenticated > blacklist keyring patchset). Thanks. I would suggest merging these changes in so that the error is not found by bisection. But the functions really are mislocated:-/ David