linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add linux-security-module mailing list to TPM drivers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20190220223903.dusft4bbd33hu2qi@cantor>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:39:03 -0700
From:   Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add linux-security-module mailing list to
 TPM drivers

On Thu Feb 21 19, James Morris wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
>> > being cc'd to linux-security-module? Looking back at
>> > recent patches, it looked like it was a general request.
>> > If it is, I'll be more likely to remember if get_maintainers.pl
>> > brings it up. :)
>>
>> I'm all open here. Not sure which practices apply to IMA. I kind of tend
>> to dilate to question does it make sense to CC to LSM for two reasons:
>>
>> 1. I think the original reason was that tpmdd mailing list was small.
>> Now with the new linux-integrity mailing list up and running there is
>> more eyes looking at the code. And more importantly the people are
>> subscribed who use TPM for something, like IMA developers.
>> 2. I don't remember ever reading within the time that I've been
>> maintaining even a single comment from anyone that works with LSM's. The
>> value of CC'ing there is not very significant, which means that most of
>> the time the TPM traffic is just noise on that list.
>
>Sounds about right, there used to be more security folk on LSM and not as
>many on the TPM list, but the new integrity list works well for TPM now.
>
>
>-- 
>James Morris
><jmorris@...ei.org>
>

Okay. Ignore this patch then.