[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f4264f0a83c1b080ad2a22d63ecf1fcca87dfebb.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 10:24:44 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: support trusted keys
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 16:13 +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> On 17.08.21 15:55, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > I have no opinion as to whether this is/isn't a valid usecase.
>
> So you'd be fine with merging trusted key support as is and leave encrypted
> key support to someone who has a valid use case and wants to argue
> in its favor?
That decision as to whether it makes sense to support trusted keys
directly, based on the new trust sources, is a decision left up to the
maintainer(s) of the new usecase and the new trust sources maintainer
Jarkko.
thanks,
Mimi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists