Received: by 2002:ac0:a679:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id p54csp986949imp; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:51:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZhVwubYhy1E+CMVm1sLRF4+DZCSzHQbfHWWY3QnJSGb+3W0f+wnYYimvF7xeTnSbiL2mrx X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:708b:: with SMTP id z11mr38841340plk.203.1550695881324; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:51:21 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550695881; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=GE87R2AqhnURX3u1l9mo0lFTe5r/SqzikQ1GHfb4morZyGCGaaInPso1H+Edk2ArMC oH8/rPecIuRDfjSqarn4jLRW+o45tW/7WOmEBgdvzXuMwLe+97nFOLV00cyGWllqx7IT hUZ28lw1cJnNIiTkUYusIJvzSeCqQIFb7AD235wvSkCfG92WF/mxl380hg3qmDkyL/XL D07M8Kl742S8i4m4SPHhp64OO7S6m0ZajREDqaDEUTLDxx6t/5DHSbdhbvNDQtF/yvuS 3t+2Q0L/c8pqq+Mn/smx7+dQBE9M/Ar+AZx0gDM5B4swW1aGOLJSRlSlX671IGqDpZA1 1acg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:user-agent:references :message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=sQdmidn9wjTOBWyXFuhOhrGrxvylHagNsdr+FpURhg0=; b=0+3JnmTtoTNv+XMroDAEscJzOguuN9/+qaLf32Gbc+6KzjPhSiQZSdEACqWRw8jZcL YIr3wu3M+PvBXfrv13VUnrgBiWhYF65qWdoMVJQV+N5TwExoFWfaE/+F+ZyYKLQTfgNv ruNX5BqUfDdmYPbF5ve+H6hjk6/76uoCnnhzhEDE0Tdx9nVHzvyXfHUv9wLQiyUpkLiO xCOhiamL+LxmfDS98z7imrvuZVxbnECPqkht9AjT/NzL6fky1DuCdllat/ptQ63R6jI6 UCuOlIz/5b31A2rxnaonZXjjdgw0QUu4l1yWF9dqMJcD5PQNbIct3FVHDNn+nNxpPasj n0ug== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t70si498381pgd.85.2019.02.20.12.51.05; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:51:21 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726643AbfBTUuh (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:50:37 -0500 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:53318 "EHLO namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725869AbfBTUuh (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:50:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by namei.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1KKnVDP001538; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:49:31 GMT Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 07:49:31 +1100 (AEDT) From: James Morris To: Jarkko Sakkinen cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Huewe , Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add linux-security-module mailing list to TPM drivers In-Reply-To: <20190220150445.GA4794@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20190220035846.6272-1-jsnitsel@redhat.com> <20190220070413.GB23027@linux.intel.com> <20190220140357.5vbepgmexso3jc6d@cantor> <20190220150445.GA4794@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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