On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 18:07, Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 17:47 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 16:04, Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 13:12 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 11:27 +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 04:46, Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Do bind neither static calls nor trusted_key_exit() before a > > > > > > successful > > > > > > init, in order to maintain a consistent state. In addition, depart > > > > > > the > > > > > > init_trusted() in the case of a real error (i.e. getting back > > > > > > something > > > > > > else than -ENODEV). > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> > > > > > > Closes: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/CAHk-=whOPoLaWM8S8GgoOPT7a2+nMH5h3TLKtn=r_3w4r1_...@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > > > Cc: [email protected] # v5.13+ > > > > > > Fixes: 5d0682be3189 ("KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys > > > > > > framework") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c > > > > > > b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c > > > > > > index 85fb5c22529a..fee1ab2c734d 100644 > > > > > > --- a/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c > > > > > > +++ b/security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c > > > > > > @@ -358,17 +358,17 @@ static int __init init_trusted(void) > > > > > > if (!get_random) > > > > > > get_random = kernel_get_random; > > > > > > > > > > > > - static_call_update(trusted_key_seal, > > > > > > - > > > > > > trusted_key_sources[i].ops->seal); > > > > > > - static_call_update(trusted_key_unseal, > > > > > > - > > > > > > trusted_key_sources[i].ops->unseal); > > > > > > - static_call_update(trusted_key_get_random, > > > > > > - get_random); > > > > > > - trusted_key_exit = trusted_key_sources[i].ops->exit; > > > > > > - migratable = trusted_key_sources[i].ops->migratable; > > > > > > - > > > > > > ret = trusted_key_sources[i].ops->init(); > > > > > > - if (!ret) > > > > > > + if (!ret) { > > > > > > + static_call_update(trusted_key_seal, > > > > > > trusted_key_sources[i].ops->seal); > > > > > > + static_call_update(trusted_key_unseal, > > > > > > trusted_key_sources[i].ops->unseal); > > > > > > + static_call_update(trusted_key_get_random, > > > > > > get_random); > > > > > > + > > > > > > + trusted_key_exit = > > > > > > trusted_key_sources[i].ops->exit; > > > > > > + migratable = > > > > > > trusted_key_sources[i].ops->migratable; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (!ret || ret != -ENODEV) > > > > > > > > > > As mentioned in the other thread, we should allow other trust sources > > > > > to be initialized if the primary one fails. > > > > > > > > I sent the patch before I received that response but here's what you > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > "We should give other trust sources a chance to register for trusted > > > > keys if the primary one fails." > > > > > > > > 1. This condition is lacking an inline comment. > > > > 2. Neither this response or the one that you pointed out has any > > > > explanation why for any system failure the process should > > > > continue. > > > > > > > > You should really know the situations (e.g. list of posix error > > > > code) when the process can continue and "allow list" those. This > > > > way way too abstract. It cannot be let all possible system failures > > > > pass. > > > > > > And it would nice if it printed out something for legit cases. Like > > > "no device found" etc. And for rest it must really withdraw the whole > > > process. > > > > IMO, it would be quite tricky to come up with an allow list. Can we > > keep "EACCES", "EPERM", "ENOTSUPP" etc in that allow list? I think > > these are all debatable. > > Yes, that does sounds reasonable. > > About the debate. Well, it is better eagerly block and tree falls down > somewhere we can consider extending the list through a fix. > > This all wide open is worse than a few glitches somewhere, which are > trivial to fix. >
Fair enough, I would suggest we document it appropriately such that it is clear to the users or somebody looking at the code. -Sumit > BR, Jarkko
