[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160308140623.GB2243@p310>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:06:23 +0200
From: Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/12] certs: Add a secondary system keyring that can
be added to dynamically [ver #2]
On 16-03-08 13:13:59, David Howells wrote:
> Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > but we're left with a lot of references to "system_trusted" (eg.
> > restrict_link_to_system_trusted, depends on SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING
>
> How about I pluralise it to SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRINGS? The fact that one is
> called builtin and the other secondary doesn't detract from the fact that
> they're both system-wide rings of trusted keys.
>
> Or would you prefer .system_trusted_keys and .secondary_trusted_keys? Even
> though the second is also a "system" trusted keyring.
Ah, naming things... This is true science... :-)
cheers,
Petko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists