[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CVH3NT4ZIBNS.22HFUP0WCDY26@suppilovahvero>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:03:26 +0300
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Nayna" <nayna@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@...e.de>,
<linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Mimi Zohar" <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Dmitry Kasatkin" <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
"Paul Moore" <paul@...l-moore.com>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "joeyli" <jlee@...e.com>,
"Eric Snowberg" <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>,
"Nayna Jain" <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
"linuxppc-dev" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] integrity: powerpc: Do not select CA_MACHINE_KEYRING
On Tue Sep 12, 2023 at 6:39 AM EEST, Nayna wrote:
>
> On 9/7/23 13:32, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > Adding more CC's from the original patch, looks like get_maintainers is
> > not that great for this file.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 07, 2023 at 06:52:19PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >> No other platform needs CA_MACHINE_KEYRING, either.
> >>
> >> This is policy that should be decided by the administrator, not Kconfig
> >> dependencies.
>
> We certainly agree that flexibility is important. However, in this case,
> this also implies that we are expecting system admins to be security
> experts. As per our understanding, CA based infrastructure(PKI) is the
> standard to be followed and not the policy decision. And we can only
> speak for Power.
In the end this is dictating policy for no compelling reason, and
that is the bottom line here, not playing a mind game what type of
expertise a sysadmin might or might not have.
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists