From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752759Ab3CNUhL (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33000 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751989Ab3CNUhG (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:03 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: "Kasatkin, Dmitry" Cc: Mimi Zohar , linux kernel mailing list , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] integrity: Use a new type for asymmetric signature Message-ID: <20130314203703.GF24238@redhat.com> References: <20130314182815.GB24238@redhat.com> <20130314203028.GE24238@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130314203028.GE24238@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 04:30:28PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: [..] > I thought explicitly using signature format is more intutive. Exporting > signature version is not. I personally associate versioning with minor > changes like addition of some fields etc. For instance, you might want to add some fields to signature_v2_hdr down the line. I think even after that change, it still remains "asymmetric signature" just that structure size changes and there is additional info. If there is versioning info assciated with signature type ASYMMETRIC, we could simple bump it to 1.1 or whatever and keep the version detail internal to ima/integrity subsystem. Thanks Vivek