From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="imAl28ri" Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B812D79 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 06:33:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0353728.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AME9GK2004610 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:32 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=YJkzrFlFC9KGN3ETtQonj/dYF3b/hD1G12Ribzv2hQc=; b=imAl28riMRnFh8uJeVqK7h3D1sIbkyz7VY+bYZdtUIeOQBaK/gJetCKl/biwQLL3+riu pY/RllnOTN/hzQwlz4pwP45NJl2gIKYfk5CgPvWUKMVzThiDSYqosf8+dPXpoEzMuPsC 1EOYvVGw35VIsK6vis5cKS1vEOCo3JnqKqdgmHcf8uWJa8vVp/8WQ5ZgrHYKHPaVVBep Uud9AUMnbV7V29kzTfdDTJtYNUfZjKJiS43uWUgVhzbB741LMfvMcaxJH0QLnemsFMtl eN0HJnacNdHiI/XQI9S4bMZAP6zoJOJAm6IOiFlLysTa1JUV5naM7RisqaWQVE8SuV+q 4Q== Received: from ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5d.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.93]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uhj8qj2cp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:31 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AMDT4dl001718 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:30 GMT Received: from smtprelay04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.6]) by ppma23.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uf93m07jw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:30 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.229]) by smtprelay04.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3AMEXT7x19792628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:29 GMT Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4FB5805B; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DF958058; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.47.158.152] (unknown [9.47.158.152]) by smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 14:33:28 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <7042007c-dcc5-404b-878c-f5f36f9fb5af@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 09:33:28 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [ima-evm-utils PATCH 09/12] Use a local hash algorithm variable when verifying file signatures Content-Language: en-US To: Mimi Zohar , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org References: <20231119165043.46960-1-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <20231119165043.46960-10-zohar@linux.ibm.com> <93aa5f57-fd8a-475f-a1b8-c8d00772b251@linux.ibm.com> From: Stefan Berger In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: o1WzuulXXAC5ZmlsT1qJXUA_T-ytCoXj X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: o1WzuulXXAC5ZmlsT1qJXUA_T-ytCoXj X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.987,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-11-22_10,2023-11-22_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311060000 definitions=main-2311220103 On 11/22/23 09:14, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 08:37 -0500, Stefan Berger wrote: >> >> Now you are passing valid parameters into verify_hash2(). Would it not >> be possible to drop 4/12? > > Just as we can't modify the library verify_hash() definition, I don't > think we should be modifying the verify_hash2() defintion either. > 04/12 defines and exports the final verify_hash2() definition. > The question is whether verify_hash2() can be only introduced here in versus made available in 4/12 with a parameter that it doesn't use at all at that point.