linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Pull request for 4.13 for IPMI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFzVChmdnxonYOeKi=VBUu1C7Cgw-vFY+A0knGB+-p+=vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:59:10 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Pull request for 4.13 for IPMI

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org> wrote:
>
> Dang it.  I generated a new key to replace the old key, waiting to have it
> signed an such, and it defaulted to the new key.  I'll do a v2 with the
> right key.  Sorry.

I would have been perfectly happy with the new key if you just signed
it with the old one, which is kind of the usual thing anyway.

In fact, I do accept unsigned keys when new people start using them,
in that they can get signatures later and in the meantime the key at
least shows that multiple pull requests were generated with the same
key.

It's just that combination of "new key, not signed by an old key I
know should have been available" that makes me go "Hmm.."

(Of course, I do also prefer to get a heads-up about key changes that
don't just involve a refresh of the expiration date, but nobody ever
remembers to let people know, so I just say "oh, new key" and then
look to make sure that it looks sane).

                 Linus