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;
Date:   Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:49:08 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>,
        =?us-ascii?B?PT91dGYtOD9RP01pY2thPUMzPUFCbF9TYWxhPUMzPUJDbj89?= 
        <mic@digikod.net>, dwmw2@infradead.org,
        James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, masahiroy@kernel.org,
        michal.lkml@markovi.net, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
        ardb@kernel.org, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        lszubowi@redhat.com, javierm@redhat.com, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Conflict with =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?=EBl_Sala=FCn's_blacklist_patches_=5Bwas_=5BPATCH_v5_0=2F4?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?=5D?= Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx/mokx entries]
Message-ID: <YCZrNIecWpZGvbaw@kernel.org>
References: <20210122181054.32635-1-eric.snowberg@oracle.com>
 <1103491.1612369600@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <10e6616e-0598-9f33-2de9-4a5268bba586@digikod.net>
 <A5B5DEC0-E47A-4C3D-8E79-AF37B6C2E565@oracle.com>
 <7924ce4c-ea94-9540-0730-bddae7c6af07@digikod.net>
 <BFC930B3-7994-4C5B-A8EF-1DD1C73F5750@oracle.com>
 <dc6a4524-3935-fda6-40a8-cebf80942cdf@digikod.net>
 <188DE1AF-A011-4631-B88A-2C4324DA013B@oracle.com>
 <99066eb7-53ac-41b0-46cf-36ea3d7f6590@digikod.net>
 <525705.1612876446@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <525705.1612876446@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:14:06PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric, Micka?l,
> 
> Do we have a consensus on this?  From what's written here, I don't think I can
> ask Linus to pull the merge of your two branches.  I feel that I probably need
> to push Eric's first as that fixes a CVE if I can't offer a merge.
> 
> David

Would it be possible to compose a single unified patch set?

It's also somewhat distracting to review both separately.

/Jarkko