Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] integrity: Move import of MokListRT certs to a separate routine | From | Lenny Szubowicz <> | Date | Fri, 11 Sep 2020 13:18:32 -0400 |
| |
On 9/11/20 11:59 AM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > 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 <lszubowi@redhat.com> 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 <lszubowi@redhat.com> >>> >>> 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 <zohar@linux.ibm.com> >> >> 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
If you or Ard think I should, I can do a V3 with:
Patch V3 01: Unchanged from V2 Patch V3 02: Goes back to V1 of patch 02 that Mimi reviewed Patch V3 03: New. Has Andy's cleanup suggestions separated from patch 02 Patch V3 04: This would most probably just be the V2 of patch 03 with no changes
-Lenny.
> >> >> Advice on the expected handling of this would be appreciated. > >
| |