Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley
	Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United
	Kingdom.
	Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903
From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1457402735.5321.14.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1457402735.5321.14.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160304150022.17121.34501.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20160304150142.17121.56666.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        keyrings@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/12] certs: Add a secondary system keyring that can be added to dynamically [ver #2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <30698.1457442839.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:13:59 +0000
Message-ID: <30699.1457442839@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 518
Lines: 13

Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> but we're left with a lot of references to "system_trusted" (eg.
> restrict_link_to_system_trusted, depends on SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRING

How about I pluralise it to SYSTEM_TRUSTED_KEYRINGS?  The fact that one is
called builtin and the other secondary doesn't detract from the fact that
they're both system-wide rings of trusted keys.

Or would you prefer .system_trusted_keys and .secondary_trusted_keys?  Even
though the second is also a "system" trusted keyring.

David