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=-6.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 6ABE1C433E6 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39A3164E01 for ; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231878AbhA1P7q (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:59:46 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:43675 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231245AbhA1P7o (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:59:44 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611849498; 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=Be25vmGqRhkmgPL4pLFQDcyJCsUHDsc9RcG0TdvFtds=; b=BlX8AZwkW5F8HnXZbenM35tXQKisYp4hEIaaYStfLo1GQHKrjI/2ecBsVIb6GwA1dE/aZk 06cqWUcUOMstUtNvYBmVCJAOyJqdb0eYjg31Q/V748j8jrvx3Qiejt/U+7vgX11wi8CMcR wclfhyfgiy61DOPGAPmLARWUdlas+Ek= 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-128-zf5yUEjJOB2hIravAJ_WXA-1; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:58:14 -0500 X-MC-Unique: zf5yUEjJOB2hIravAJ_WXA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D4AB180A096; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from warthog.procyon.org.uk (ovpn-115-23.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.115.23]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056845D9F4; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:58:03 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <8f0c3b88-872a-bbae-eaa2-1467b6f386a0@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <8f0c3b88-872a-bbae-eaa2-1467b6f386a0@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20210122181054.32635-1-eric.snowberg@oracle.com> <20210122181054.32635-2-eric.snowberg@oracle.com> <399024a1-59fb-12b8-9ea9-9bbee843dbc8@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <13EE0575-2F90-4C49-AF5D-365B63D2CB64@oracle.com> To: Nayna Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Eric Snowberg , dwmw2@infradead.org, Jarkko Sakkinen , James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, masahiroy@kernel.org, michal.lkml@markovi.net, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, ardb@kernel.org, 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] certs: Add EFI_CERT_X509_GUID support for dbx entries MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3579294.1611849483.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:58:03 +0000 Message-ID: <3579295.1611849483@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nayna wrote: > Thanks Eric for clarifying. I was confusing it with with the broader mea= ning > of revocation i.e. certificate revocation list. To avoid similar confusi= on in > the future, I wonder if we should call it as 'blocklist' or 'denylist' a= s > suggested in the document. This is to avoid conflicts with actual CRL su= pport > if added in the future. I also wonder if we should add the clarification= in > the patch description. Reject-list might be better. David