From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15986C8D2; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:06:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706832377; cv=none; b=ZVRXw1xPZZjI6/zj3zqUbXhfJokMhvbyvvTS1KvkbHsajIRjmf6CqlrPoYKqxV2JN7fHlvqhvi2+pqtukt7B7LCTvw6vKy7eZWuyAgVTF0Xxu2vref2+3wKH/2ipKp4GE8sOOsogAPBrl1+tR16wuYdb0gViZKGd0kID6781Ges= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706832377; c=relaxed/simple; bh=N5ytPMI8CcBmVCIRgJRyHCtLc2INmcdE0bUH/E1B1pA=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Mime-Version; b=N5+QxxJ0CKGZxycwK9m0dvouzJXwJ1gWotMOxbRqtz90eE/7mXg7DcUf+1lq8subY/Ia8VEWQOns/cwKrV2qd7ICZKnX5lRr3e5lmvvi97leI88wQfaQjtwT7xb9kAAHMlJ8Us7gYPH2hjnvP1l3Lf4kEjPS3LJLE2jLOmSL8mQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=fWSSMaSK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="fWSSMaSK" Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 411Nbr7x020563; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:05:55 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=344H4x8Ad8z8mLylBhJTlrMcVRy2QejlkXWVgJvg15c=; b=fWSSMaSKXCTh1Gs99inTLNtCPiCtwuibOItyo1C4K4zgA4enOyUXk1rVRITHSzV/kdsL vrwMYNUOaUIZBba4PnyY/BGQM05MutP0HoYPHHenVsTbU2VSWc9IuNY3jBvdIcmmaR+7 EaphozfCgcDiwqdr3XT1HgyYJum8REE5KkHi37ChllKbq7w9eb739DIShztOQpDQbHmR qQhQMB6lzrUl+waCRB/Af7Ov+VFhjr0n2b63fqwIvXzM86npCRwa6bIwQuHBM/CiZHP7 BJtNhd8+QhUy1ZUhur/rvCN/8Cs5hon0E4HTuK5tG2pmatkWWcFkEe7DRAFuIm/6Gth5 aQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3w0n518n4a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Feb 2024 00:05:55 +0000 Received: from m0353725.ppops.net (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 411NcwFo023109; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:05:54 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3w0n518n3u-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Feb 2024 00:05:54 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 411MgJYi007189; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:05:53 GMT Received: from smtprelay01.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.68]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3vwev2qbxx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 02 Feb 2024 00:05:53 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.229]) by smtprelay01.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 41205qxA48562502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:05:52 GMT Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54105805E; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:05:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2119858059; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:05:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-5cd3c5cc-21f9-11b2-a85c-a4381f30c2f3.ibm.com (unknown [9.61.60.157]) by smtpav02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:05:51 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] KEYS: encrypted: Add check for strsep From: Mimi Zohar To: Jarkko Sakkinen , Dan Williams , "Verma, Vishal L" , "paul@paul-moore.com" , "dhowells@redhat.com" , "yaelt@google.com" , "serge@hallyn.com" , "nichen@iscas.ac.cn" , "sumit.garg@linaro.org" , "jmorris@namei.org" Cc: "Jiang, Dave" , "linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "keyrings@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org" , "nvdimm@lists.linux.dev" Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 19:05:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <20231108073627.1063464-1-nichen@iscas.ac.cn> <4d3465b48b9c5a87deb385b15bf5125fc1704019.camel@intel.com> <49c48e3e96bf0f5ebef14e7328cc8a6ca6380e08.camel@linux.ibm.com> <50c2fa781e3266ee8151afdef5a8659d63ca952e.camel@intel.com> <65b93f2b3099b_5cc6f29453@dwillia2-mobl3.amr.corp.intel.com.notmuch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-22.el8) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: oLsn3Vd9Pcs0Fl12p7OhnGd4O-iUA5CF X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: GJlw1TEeGH8bzKJubicc8sFAJerRWBn3 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.1011,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2024-02-01_08,2024-01-31_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 adultscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 impostorscore=0 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311290000 definitions=main-2402010185 On Thu, 2024-02-01 at 23:43 +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 8:25 PM EET, Dan Williams wrote: > > Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > On Tue Jan 30, 2024 at 7:22 PM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > > On Wed Jan 24, 2024 at 11:10 PM EET, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 15:40 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 2024-01-24 at 20:10 +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, thanks for confirming! Would you like me to send a > > > > > > > revert patch or > > > > > > > will you do it? > > > > > > > > > > > > Revert "KEYS: encrypted: Add check for strsep" > > > > > > > > > > > > This reverts commit > > > > > > b4af096b5df5dd131ab796c79cedc7069d8f4882. > > > > > > > > > > > > New encrypted keys are created either from kernel-generated > > > > > > random > > > > > > numbers or user-provided decrypted data. Revert the change > > > > > > requiring > > > > > > user-provided decrypted data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can I add your Reported-by? > > > > > > > > > > Yes that works, Thank you. > > > > > > > > This went totally wrong IMHO. > > > > > > > > Priority should be to locate and fix the bug not revert useful > > > > stuff > > > > when a bug is found that has limited scope. > > > > > > By guidelines here the commit is also a bug fix and reverting > > > such commit means seeding a bug to the mainline. Also the klog > > > message alone is a bug fix here. So also by book it really has > > > to come back as it was already commit because we cannot > > > knowingly mount bugs to the mainline, right? > > > > No, the commit broke userspace. The rule is do not cause > > regressions > > even if userspace is abusing the ABI in an undesirable way. Even > > the > > new pr_info() is a log spamming behavior change, a pr_debug() might > > be > > suitable, but otherwise a logic change here needs a clear > > description > > about what is broken about the old userspace behavior and why the > > kernel > > can not possibly safely handle it. > > The rationale literally gives empirical proof that the log message > is useful by measure. It would be useless if log level is decreased > to debug, as then sysadmin's won't take notice. I don't really know > what is the definition of "spam" here but at least for me actually > useful log message are not in that category. > > Issue was legit but git revert is objectively an incorrect way to > address the bug. No, I made a mistake in upstreaming the patch in the first place. It broke the original "encrypted" keys usage. Reverting it was the correct solution. Mimi