From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DC0C43461 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:00:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0034F206BE for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:00:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="e5pnrFZu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725780AbgIKQAF (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 12:00:05 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:58846 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726486AbgIKP7c (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:59:32 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08BFg9QW081422; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:59:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : subject : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=uZDTO2GkQg+Od5pn1R1dGCVVyOGSxX9njGLsk+QgEdQ=; b=e5pnrFZuvYtzcUS40VWKTHD1wbawkwx6oagAwtmOyehwmUvsneTpPXp5ZnAXvx6D+cPm 6cdx1Qe/OSkVof5RiEhwg8rqwCT4Qv0YQa/cwjF4qs8cbCqy2ylh7Vp5RllPjpn9Pi2F l5hcs+OnrQ8PIPHBfx08gNUrsQvFpiMBJqx33CbgGXhUHvJDwMnUy2yPFviYKxhqbd3E L8324neHoulfAiGj1v5O9aB626UDOVHBQmy0yDXUo7NulJsfut+qz6fuOvLw9Ml1Q6Cr rFEk6X9DuUGw2vOfYymjt7NjX+Suzk5nWaMoyri+3fl/uWbJqTG8eUEbg5KE+1Zk58ya +g== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33gc3p0cmq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:59:16 -0400 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 08BFhmgX086123; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:59:16 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 33gc3p0cm2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:59:15 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08BFuno5016580; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:59:14 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 33dxdr4jjt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:59:14 +0000 Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.58]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 08BFxBu17667972 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:59:11 GMT Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915C94C05E; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:59:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33074C046; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:59:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sig-9-65-251-51.ibm.com (unknown [9.65.251.51]) by d06av22.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 15:59:08 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] integrity: Move import of MokListRT certs to a separate routine From: Mimi Zohar To: Lenny Szubowicz , 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 Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 11:59:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20200905013107.10457-1-lszubowi@redhat.com> <20200905013107.10457-3-lszubowi@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-12.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-09-11_05:2020-09-10,2020-09-11 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=3 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009110125 Sender: linux-efi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org 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 > > Advice on the expected handling of this would be appreciated.