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.
One discussion points should be what these handlers should be called. Right now the patch set is misleads the reader to think as this was some kind of "official" term and set to stone.
I proposed some naming here (dependency of this patch set):
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20230317145240.363908-6-roberto.sassu@huaweiclou...
Please let me know if it sounds reasonable to you.
Thanks
Roberto