From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752894AbaGJOst (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:48:49 -0400 Received: from mailout1.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.11]:27144 "EHLO mailout1.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751685AbaGJOsr (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:48:47 -0400 X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-b7f626d000004b39-a8-53bea7cd58bb Message-id: <53BEA780.5050602@samsung.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:47:28 +0300 From: Dmitry Kasatkin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: Mimi Zohar , David Howells Cc: keyrings , linux-security-module , linux-kernel , Josh Boyer , Matthew Garrett , Dmitry Kasatkin Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] ima: extending secure boot certificate chain of trust References: <1404924054.14643.36.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> <1403620852-16476-1-git-send-email-zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <24144.1404919879@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <8975.1404932208@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1404941347.14643.57.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> In-reply-to: <1404941347.14643.57.camel@dhcp-9-2-203-236.watson.ibm.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [106.122.1.121] X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrJLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xK7pnl+8LNng8n8PiXdNvFosvS+ss Drx7wmIxe9dDFovLu+awWXzoecRmcfXhbBaLTysmMTtweOycdZfdY9qJZSweDw5tZvF4v+8q m8e6G1/ZPT5vkgtgi+KySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKeNDoVXCWo+LFmZPMDYx/2boYOTkkBEwkHv97 BGWLSVy4tx7I5uIQEljKKLG/5wgjhNPIJDH7yE9WkCohgVmMEq8OuIDYvAJaEhfvP2IHsVkE VCVudr5nBrHZBPQkNjT/AIuLCkRIHOh7xgpRLyjxY/I9FhBbRMBP4uGZF2D1zAJ9TBJ3Nol2 MXJwCAsES5x9pw+xajaTxKmjFiA2p4CHxMrz+6HK1SUmzVsEZctLbF7zlhmiXlWie+1aqGcU JU5PPsc8gVF4FpLNs5C0z0LSvoCReRWjaGppckFxUnqukV5xYm5xaV66XnJ+7iZGSPR83cG4 9JjVIUYBDkYlHt4Xu/cEC7EmlhVX5h5ilOBgVhLhvbJoX7AQb0piZVVqUX58UWlOavEhRiYO TqkGRkH9/a5O4pd/7VxhOIv1ucavVWFR6ddc9vOtPrrAa7pfkLKYyctrmgv6L9ev3nFMkf/S 3gd1F11aUxcZqvpNfX/kWE7GhndlEbsMkznnFWlplmzOLOzxkhP/8mDLrteZM3mzDJ9zn3oS xHM+1fGetZvj6x2HpD7fslR0fmGw9I9c/ZpJwVkLTiixFGckGmoxFxUnAgAx8zMHfAIAAA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, If patches from integrity/next-trusted-keys goes via your tree, then I suggest that you re-base your patches on the top of our patchset, because it is unclear how long review of PE, PKCS7 patches will take and if they will be pulled... I would do it with different pull requests. - Dmitry On 10/07/14 00:29, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 19:56 +0100, David Howells wrote: >> Mimi Zohar wrote: >> >>> Yes, that's fine. My concern, however, is that the trusted keyring >>> patches are independent of the other patches being upstreamed and should >>> be upstreamed regardless of the other patches. >> There is overlap in the X.509 certificate request function that you took from >> my pkcs#7 patches. > Right, x509_request_asymmetric_key() is the same as > pkcs7_request_asymmetric_key(). > > Mimi > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >