I've seen requests to add linux-security-module to tpm patch
submissions a couple of times recently, so just add the list
to MAINTAINERS so get_maintainers.pl will mention it.
Cc: Peter Huewe <[email protected]>
Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <[email protected]>
---
MAINTAINERS | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 41ce5f4ad838..cd0a3aecba65 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -15477,6 +15477,7 @@ M: Peter Huewe <[email protected]>
M: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
R: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
L: [email protected]
+L: [email protected]
Q: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-integrity/list/
W: https://kernsec.org/wiki/index.php/Linux_Kernel_Integrity
T: git git://git.infradead.org/users/jjs/linux-tpmdd.git
--
2.20.1.98.gecbdaf0899
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:58:46PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> I've seen requests to add linux-security-module to tpm patch
> submissions a couple of times recently, so just add the list
> to MAINTAINERS so get_maintainers.pl will mention it.
>
> Cc: Peter Huewe <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <[email protected]>
I guess James should say something about this.
/Jarkko
On Wed Feb 20 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:58:46PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
>> I've seen requests to add linux-security-module to tpm patch
>> submissions a couple of times recently, so just add the list
>> to MAINTAINERS so get_maintainers.pl will mention it.
>>
>> Cc: Peter Huewe <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <[email protected]>
>
>I guess James should say something about this.
>
>/Jarkko
Sorry, I meant to add James as well.
Maybe this isn't needed. Do you only want certain patches
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. :)
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:03:57AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Wed Feb 20 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:58:46PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > I've seen requests to add linux-security-module to tpm patch
> > > submissions a couple of times recently, so just add the list
> > > to MAINTAINERS so get_maintainers.pl will mention it.
> > >
> > > Cc: Peter Huewe <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <[email protected]>
> >
> > I guess James should say something about this.
> >
> > /Jarkko
>
> Sorry, I meant to add James as well.
>
> Maybe this isn't needed. Do you only want certain patches
> 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.
/Jarkko
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
<[email protected]>
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
><[email protected]>
>
Okay. Ignore this patch then.