Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/6] verification: Introduce verify_umd_signature() and verify_umd_message_sig()

[Roberto Sassu]

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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 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-vajeRcNh3s6eeoJNxS7wp77dFQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Please let me know if it sounds reasonable to you.

Thanks

Roberto