Re: [RFC PATCH] integrity: Use a new type for asymmetric signature

[Vivek Goyal]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:57:57AM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:08:45PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, it will make some things cleaner.
> >
> > So do you agree that every new signature format should have a new entry
> > and we can introduce new signature type for asymmetric signature.
> >
> 
> Hi Vivek,
> 
> I was/am a bit busy with responding.
> I will do it asap.

Hi Dmitry,

Sure. Only thing to keep in mind is that if you want to change it, we
better do it in 3.9. Otherwise changing it in 3.10 will be messy.

Thanks
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/