Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:22f:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 15csp418763pxk; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:20:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy1t+0eoiNYArUsGxTcG/QLWu2GtGDdRiAdOlvmtBMlomLSqpza7ZFF8NwntAkGbyolmJBZ X-Received: by 2002:a50:e70e:: with SMTP id a14mr3172193edn.93.1599844809723; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:20:09 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1599844809; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=l6Q3YC8AEv6AF2sqry8kJr7ZVZaOqHJ16uPSYG8qW7IBGvObE9JTQ6S1x+afMzhtMh 6i0+Yzm8yPwtDGtPlGvw6RqmqpaBXzSFfWB6qNecIrsaZXpFPAH4+CMuSvxIjW35+CEJ VCPtE3UGiGKBACyWt4jTlNeWqfm/QE/fwgPzzSF8QBND72ws6GKFNJfcGVF4wsZbgzVz D5B+e4VprrRBRC4gg8XMDKbMprk/ZfZQTT7tsQ5lrOoSStXX+NwZ/w2jtrx/OgzvKIim KTrt66rL5PMUGoto4uQbOuBUNY/yhJjnn5f6R6eezrdCTT1A7Kqr74L5+v3CY725scdC bZVw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:dkim-signature; bh=kUZ4F9VBNeDOexQ4ImvdIONeNb+COlnwiJ6I4shsy2Q=; b=NwcrJGoqK0KRVqXCVhmgYP+8fSn9EP6ckkownxRGY7UyL1n/mmrKLqz6dppMjicaPf rlT06hsTuLZyRQtqTPhp+IapyhvW7o2edpSKl6PG8T+kenPtqm/1WJ592fa0b4x167fo YwDVshgkVZassNNMHza8v3Ogq8+4aRz8UFyQ4eGa13kppycp1F/ccyMSuvGX/At9APAn LJOoie1JhMHkatWMNTXlTu8EBMu8BkuP0uWeAkOxc+YgfUA9CnwF1oiGErpofFdyy1RZ lRoP8FqFgFuwB9ShAy79Ci3FBNwMPAIoQIKsk4dsXyH8xqpOVmP0Tb3ziSQmcrDvrvxC WepA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=IFwVBRpS; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a23si1664699ejk.229.2020.09.11.10.19.46; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 10:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=IFwVBRpS; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=redhat.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726193AbgIKRS5 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:57 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:54190 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725860AbgIKRSm (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1599844720; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kUZ4F9VBNeDOexQ4ImvdIONeNb+COlnwiJ6I4shsy2Q=; b=IFwVBRpSLNsw1yFnwXiZ5nioYsnwtWbC7Nivlu04xk8c2+QI3Lg/1MY7QJiPNrd5+Y7S2c UKCaBLGqfEEcjrB4+KiuobvCHt05aj/+iekB8hwMeKQ4erCBsLtYfDzfanW3KYCraxI0Eo IC3rvRnhwNfi3rN9RzFJSfhtA4Ux+Lo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-297-Yrhrg5z2Nv6BretARpwOBA-1; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:38 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Yrhrg5z2Nv6BretARpwOBA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67899393B6; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:18:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.10.110.42] (unknown [10.10.110.42]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477E45C1BD; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:18:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] integrity: Move import of MokListRT certs to a separate routine To: Mimi Zohar , Ard Biesheuvel Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-efi , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, James Morris , serge@hallyn.com, Kees Cook , Borislav Petkov , Peter Jones , David Howells , prarit@redhat.com References: <20200905013107.10457-1-lszubowi@redhat.com> <20200905013107.10457-3-lszubowi@redhat.com> From: Lenny Szubowicz Message-ID: <394190b9-59bd-5cb3-317e-736852f190f4@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:32 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/11/20 11:59 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 11:54 -0400, Lenny Szubowicz wrote: >> On 9/11/20 11:02 AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 04:31, Lenny Szubowicz wrote: >>>> >>>> Move the loading of certs from the UEFI MokListRT into a separate >>>> routine to facilitate additional MokList functionality. >>>> >>>> There is no visible functional change as a result of this patch. >>>> Although the UEFI dbx certs are now loaded before the MokList certs, >>>> they are loaded onto different key rings. So the order of the keys >>>> on their respective key rings is the same. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lenny Szubowicz >>> >>> Why did you drop Mimi's reviewed-by from this patch? >> >> It was not intentional. I was just not aware that I needed to propagate >> Mimi Zohar's reviewed-by from V1 of the patch to V2. >> >> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar >> >> V2 includes changes in that patch to incorporate suggestions from >> Andy Shevchenko. My assumption was that the maintainer would >> gather up the reviewed-by and add any signed-off-by as appropriate, >> but it sounds like my assumption was incorrect. In retrospect, I >> could see that having the maintainer dig through prior versions >> of a patch set for prior reviewed-by tags could be burdensome. > > As much as possible moving code should be done without making changes, > simpler for code review. Then as a separate patch you make changes. > That way you could also have retained my Reviewed-by. > > Mimi If you or Ard think I should, I can do a V3 with: Patch V3 01: Unchanged from V2 Patch V3 02: Goes back to V1 of patch 02 that Mimi reviewed Patch V3 03: New. Has Andy's cleanup suggestions separated from patch 02 Patch V3 04: This would most probably just be the V2 of patch 03 with no changes -Lenny. > >> >> Advice on the expected handling of this would be appreciated. > >