[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEz8y+X6KjqWWFD=38dDowqXDBvnPbgeh30+o83KpmKrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 21:16:50 +0300
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, andy.shevchenko@...il.com,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, serge@...lyn.com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, prarit@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] integrity: Move import of MokListRT certs to a
separate routine
On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 20:18, Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/11/20 11:59 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 11:54 -0400, Lenny Szubowicz wrote:
> >> On 9/11/20 11:02 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 04:31, Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Move the loading of certs from the UEFI MokListRT into a separate
> >>>> routine to facilitate additional MokList functionality.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no visible functional change as a result of this patch.
> >>>> Although the UEFI dbx certs are now loaded before the MokList certs,
> >>>> they are loaded onto different key rings. So the order of the keys
> >>>> on their respective key rings is the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@...hat.com>
> >>>
> >>> Why did you drop Mimi's reviewed-by from this patch?
> >>
> >> It was not intentional. I was just not aware that I needed to propagate
> >> Mimi Zohar's reviewed-by from V1 of the patch to V2.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
> >>
> >> V2 includes changes in that patch to incorporate suggestions from
> >> Andy Shevchenko. My assumption was that the maintainer would
> >> gather up the reviewed-by and add any signed-off-by as appropriate,
> >> but it sounds like my assumption was incorrect. In retrospect, I
> >> could see that having the maintainer dig through prior versions
> >> of a patch set for prior reviewed-by tags could be burdensome.
> >
> > As much as possible moving code should be done without making changes,
> > simpler for code review. Then as a separate patch you make changes.
> > That way you could also have retained my Reviewed-by.
> >
> > Mimi
>
> If you or Ard think I should, I can do a V3 with:
>
> Patch V3 01: Unchanged from V2
> Patch V3 02: Goes back to V1 of patch 02 that Mimi reviewed
> Patch V3 03: New. Has Andy's cleanup suggestions separated from patch 02
> Patch V3 04: This would most probably just be the V2 of patch 03 with no changes
>
I think we can just merge the patches as they are, with Mimi's R-b carried over.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists