[RFC PATCH 0/2] keys: Address lookup_user_key() mutability

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 08:09:24AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2026 at 08:54:06PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 08:55:16AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > The main objective in these patches is to remove to unneeded mutability
> > > from key look ups. It does harm and brings no value so it is pretty obvious
> > > to me that addressing this harmful behaviour is what we should do.
> > > 
> > > I based the first patch on what Jann suggested in [1]. Nothing too clever here
> > > and I'm ofc open for further suggestions.
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/keyrings/CAG48ez0XjVSR=M--UBauTm8sJuc+ZbhKzaPa3a6wrSVHyoKevw@mail.gmail.com/
> > > 
> > > Jarkko Sakkinen (2):
> > >   keys: Return user session keyring on lookup
> > >   keys: Reject keyring creation with overridden credentials
> > > 
> > >  Documentation/security/keys/core.rst |  7 ++-
> > >  security/keys/process_keys.c         | 65 +++++++++++++++-------------
> > >  2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 2.47.3
> > > 
> > 
> > So.. should I move forward to with non-RFC v2?
> 
> Patch 2 absolutely makes sense, "doc, it hurts when I do this", "don't do
> that then."
> 
> Regarding patch 1, that seems like quite a change in behavior, right?  I
> don't see any docs or comments that promise the current behavior, but
> has any userspace or subsystem come to depend on it?  I guess that, if so,
> then it just has to create a link to the user session keyring like pam
> (according to what I've read) does?

Thanks a lot of responding.

I fully agree with you but I'd need help for evaluating things further.

1/2 based on Jann's email about the topic and my interpretation of the
suggestion. I neither used brains nor AI for this and consider the patch
merely as a conversation starter (and what a great success it was on doing
that) :-)

All feedback is good feedback at this point. I need supporting code to
remember/recall later on so at least this serves that purpose.

Br, Jarkko