On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 21:25 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 13:42 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
On Wed, 2023-04-26 at 03:28 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
On Tue Apr 25, 2023 at 8:35 PM EEST, Roberto Sassu wrote:
From: Roberto Sassu roberto.sassu@huawei.com
Introduce verify_umd_signature() and verify_umd_message_sig(), to verify UMD-parsed signatures from detached data. It aims to be used by kernel subsystems wishing to verify the authenticity of system data, with system-defined keyrings as trust anchor.
UMD is not generic knowledge. It is a term coined up in this patch set so please open code it to each patch.
Yes, Linus also commented on this:
https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/CAHk-=wihqhksXHkcjuTrYmC-vajeRcNh3s6eeoJNxS7...
I will check if the full name is mentioned at least once. So far, it seems that using umd for function names should be ok.
Also: "UMD-based parser for the asymmetric key type"
It is a tautology:
UMD is based on parser which based on UMD.
I.e. makes no sense.
Everyone hates three letter acronyms so I would consider not inventing a new one out of the void.
So the corrective step would be to rename Kconfig flags as USER_ASYMMETRIC_KEY_PARSER and USER_ASYMMETRIC_SIGNATURE_PARSER.
(or along the lines)
BR, Jarkko