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;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
        linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org>,
        Matthew Garret <matthew.garret@nebula.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        George Wilson <gcwilson@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Carvalho <cclaudio@linux.ibm.com>,
        Elaine Palmer <erpalmer@us.ibm.com>,
        Eric Ricther <erichte@linux.ibm.com>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/4] powerpc: expose secure variables to the kernel and userspace
In-Reply-To: <216572e5-d8c6-f181-3ec0-b4a840f20f46@linux.microsoft.com>
References: <1573441836-3632-1-git-send-email-nayna@linux.ibm.com> <216572e5-d8c6-f181-3ec0-b4a840f20f46@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:21:00 +1100
Message-ID: <87sgmt3n5v.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@linux.microsoft.com> writes:
> On 11/10/19 7:10 PM, Nayna Jain wrote:
>
> Hi Nayna,
>
>> In order to verify the OS kernel on PowerNV systems, secure boot requires
>> X.509 certificates trusted by the platform. These are stored in secure
>> variables controlled by OPAL, called OPAL secure variables. In order to
>> enable users to manage the keys, the secure variables need to be exposed
>> to userspace.
> Are you planning to split the patches in this patch set into smaller 
> chunks so that it is easier to code review and also perhaps make it 
> easier when merging the changes?

I don't think splitting them would add any value. They're already split
into the firmware specific bits (patch 1), and the sysfs parts (patch
2), which is sufficient for me.

cheers