Re: [pkcs11] Re: Proposal: New CKA_DESTROYABLE attribute

[Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>]

On 6/12/2013 1:15 PM, Stef Walter wrote:
> > Wouldn't you return CKR_ATTRIBUTE_READ_ONLY in this case?
> Yes, perhaps. It is a misleading error code though. There is a semantic
> difference between an object that is not modifiable, and attributes that
> are read-only on an object.

Fair comment.  I think I'm agnostic on adding a new code - either way works.

> Even if we don't change this, we should document CKR_ATTRIBUTE_READ_ONLY
> as the error code to return in the case of CKA_MODIFIABLE = CK_FALSE.
> Currently it's left as an exercise to the reader.

If you add a new code or want to add this caveat, it probably needs to 
go into section 7.1.2.  If you add a new code, we'll need text for 8.1.6 
as well as an updated list of error codes for C_CopyObject.

[And apparently we forgot to do that for CKR_COPY_PROHIBITED - let me 
see if I can propose a paragraph for inclusion]



Mike