Re: [PATCH v3 03/10] KEYS: X.509: Parse Basic Constraints for CA

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>]

On Wed, 2023-01-04 at 20:14 +0000, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> 
> > On Jan 4, 2023, at 5:29 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 06:10:04AM -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h
> >>> index a299c9c56f40..7c5c0ad1c22e 100644
> >>> --- a/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h
> >>> +++ b/crypto/asymmetric_keys/x509_parser.h
> >>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ struct x509_certificate {
> >>> 	bool		self_signed;		/* T if self-signed (check unsupported_sig too) */
> >>> 	bool		unsupported_sig;	/* T if signature uses unsupported crypto */
> >>> 	bool		blacklisted;
> >>> +	bool		root_ca;		/* T if basic constraints CA is set */
> >>> }; 
> >> 
> >> The variable "root_ca" should probably be renamed to just "ca", right?
> > 
> > Perhaps is_ca?
> 
> I am open to renaming this, but need an agreement on whether the “is_” should be used or not:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b28ea211d88e968a5487b20477236e9b507755f4.camel@linux.ibm.com/

Examples of both functions and variables exist that are prefixed with
"is_".   One is a question; the other a statement.   Naming the
variable "is_ca" and using it like "if (cert->is_ca)" does make sense.

-- 
thanks,

Mimi