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:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 10:51:04 +0200
From:   Andreas Rammhold <andreas@rammhold.de>
To:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Andreas Rammhold <andreas@rammhold.de>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KEYS: trusted: Fix trusted key backends when building
 as module
Message-ID: <20210927085104.vq42feghtaqiv6ni@wrt>
References: <20210730012822.3460913-1-andreas@rammhold.de>
 <0d42a11a-0117-49a9-d2c9-bc6cc405235d@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <0d42a11a-0117-49a9-d2c9-bc6cc405235d@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 09:47 13.09.21, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Dear trusted key maintainers,
> 
> On 30.07.21 03:28, Andreas Rammhold wrote:
> > Before this commit the kernel could end up with no trusted key sources
> > even though both of the currently supported backends (TPM and TEE) were
> > compiled as modules. This manifested in the trusted key type not being
> > registered at all.
> > 
> > When checking if a CONFIG_… preprocessor variable is defined we only
> > test for the builtin (=y) case and not the module (=m) case. By using
> > the IS_REACHABLE() macro we do test for both cases.
> > 
> > Fixes: 5d0682be3189 ("KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework")
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Rammhold <andreas@rammhold.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
> Does anyone intend to pick this up?

Did this end up in any tree by now? I am wondering if I should resend
the patch instead. Perhaps it was just overlooked?


Andi