Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 18 Aug 2021 05:09:50 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@pengutronix.de>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, kernel@pengutronix.de,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, keyrings@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fscrypt: support trusted keys
Message-ID: <20210818020950.GA23184@iki.fi>
References: <20210810212140.sdq5dq2wy5uaj7h7@kernel.org>
 <YRLvPJehAeMiYb2Z@gmail.com>
 <20210811001743.ofzkwdwa6rcjsf4d@kernel.org>
 <d4f5c2593380c82ceebae2c8782a1c440b35f165.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <YRQF09f8st95yrFZ@gmail.com>
 <0e69a0aa394dd20347b06ae4e700aa17d52583ef.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <a6eb6f38-b9f4-c59c-4181-2049f181e67d@pengutronix.de>
 <285cb263d9c1c16f3918c98dd36074ef16568e6d.camel@linux.ibm.com>
 <b77836af-42a1-5aca-9363-d050352bd8aa@pengutronix.de>
 <f4264f0a83c1b080ad2a22d63ecf1fcca87dfebb.camel@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f4264f0a83c1b080ad2a22d63ecf1fcca87dfebb.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:24:44AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 16:13 +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > On 17.08.21 15:55, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > > I have no opinion as to whether this is/isn't a valid usecase.
> > 
> > So you'd be fine with merging trusted key support as is and leave encrypted
> > key support to someone who has a valid use case and wants to argue
> > in its favor?
> 
> That decision as to whether it makes sense to support trusted keys
> directly, based on the new trust sources, is a decision left up to the
> maintainer(s) of the new usecase and the new trust sources maintainer
> Jarkko.

I'm fine with "direct", as long as also "indirect" is supported.

/Jarkko