Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the keys tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:05:26 +1000

Hi Eric,

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:40:34 -0700 Eric Biggers <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:52:16PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 20:47:04 -0700 Eric Biggers <[email-masked]> wrote:  
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 12:30:42PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> > > > +static struct key_acl fsverity_acl = {
> > > > +	.usage	= REFCOUNT_INIT(1),
> > > > +	.possessor_viewable = true,    
> > > 
> > > I don't think .possessor_viewable should be set here, since there's no
> > > KEY_POSSESSOR_ACE(KEY_ACE_VIEW) in the ACL.  David, this bool is supposed to
> > > mean such an entry is present, right?  Is it really necessary, since it's
> > > redundant with the ACL itself?  
> > 
> > OK, I can take that out of the patch for tomorrow.
> >   
> > > Otherwise this looks good, thanks Stephen.  I'll want to remove a few of these
> > > permissions in a separate patch later, but for now we can just keep it
> > > equivalent to the original code as you've done.  
> > 
> > Thanks for the review.
> 
> Hmm, apparently it's not *exactly* equivalent, since the ACL is missing INVAL
> and JOIN permission for the owner, while those were originally granted by SEARCH
> permission.  We don't need those, but just to keep the merge resolution itself
> as boring as possible, can you please use the following to make it equivalent:
> 
> static struct key_acl fsverity_acl = {
> 	.usage	= REFCOUNT_INIT(1),
> 	.nr_ace	= 2,
> 	.aces = {
> 		KEY_POSSESSOR_ACE(KEY_ACE_SEARCH | KEY_ACE_JOIN |
> 				  KEY_ACE_INVAL),
> 		KEY_OWNER_ACE(KEY_ACE_VIEW | KEY_ACE_READ | KEY_ACE_WRITE |
> 			      KEY_ACE_SEARCH | KEY_ACE_SET_SECURITY |
> 			      KEY_ACE_INVAL | KEY_ACE_REVOKE | KEY_ACE_JOIN |
> 			      KEY_ACE_CLEAR),
> 	}
> };

OK, I have fixed up the patch for today (not quite as above, but
equivalently since I am editting a patch and I usually get that
wrong :-))

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell