[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190118123745.GA31072@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:37:45 +0800
From: Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Kairui Song <kasong@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
jwboyer@...oraproject.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com, bauerman@...ux.ibm.com,
ebiggers@...gle.com, nayna@...ux.ibm.com,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] let kexec_file_load use platform keyring to
verify the kernel image
On 01/18/19 at 08:34pm, Dave Young wrote:
> On 01/18/19 at 06:53am, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 17:17 +0800, Kairui Song wrote:
> > > This patch series adds a .platform_trusted_keys in system_keyring as the
> > > reference to .platform keyring in integrity subsystem, when platform
> > > keyring is being initialized it will be updated. So other component could
> > > use this keyring as well.
> >
> > Kairui, when people review patches, the comments could be specific,
> > but are normally generic. My review included a couple of generic
> > suggestions - not to use "#ifdef" in C code (eg. is_enabled), use the
> > term "preboot" keys, and remove any references to "other components".
> >
> > After all the wording suggestions I've made, you are still saying, "So
> > other components could use this keyring as well". Really?! How the
> > platform keyring will be used in the future, is up to you and others
> > to convince Linus. At least for now, please limit its usage to
> > verifying the PE signed kernel image. If this patch set needs to be
> > reposted, please remove all references to "other components".
> >
> > Dave/David, are you ok with Kairui's usage of "#ifdef's"? Dave, you
> > Acked the original post. Can I include it? Can we get some
> > additional Ack's on these patches?
>
> It is better to update patch to use IS_ENABLED in patch 1/2 as well.
Hmm, not only for patch 1/2, patch 2/2 also need an update
> Other than that, for kexec part I'm fine with an ack.
>
> Thanks
> Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists