[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7834c175-7480-d5bd-d964-a4dd783af1f3@sembritzki.me>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 09:43:05 +0200
From: Yannik Sembritzki <yannik@...britzki.me>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [FIXED v2] Replace magic for trusting the secondary
keyring with #define
On 16.08.2018 03:11, Dave Young wrote:
> Instead of fix your 1st patch in 2nd patch, I would suggest to
> switch the patch order. In 1st patch change the common code to use
> the new macro and in 2nd patch you can directly fix the kexec code
> with TRUST_SECONDARY_KEYRING.
My reasoning for doing it in this order was that the first patch which
fixes the bug itself should be merged into stable, while the refactoring
doesn't necessarily have to. I'm not familiar with the linux development
process, so please correct me if this should be done in another fashion.
Yannik
Powered by blists - more mailing lists