On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 04:58:47PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 07:52, Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 03:37:48PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote: > > > Add MAINTAINERS entry for TEE based Trusted Keys framework. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > MAINTAINERS | 8 ++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > > index 48aff80..eb3d889 100644 > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > @@ -9663,6 +9663,14 @@ F: include/keys/trusted-type.h > > > F: include/keys/trusted_tpm.h > > > F: security/keys/trusted-keys/ > > > > > > +KEYS-TRUSTED-TEE > > > +M: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > +L: linux-integrity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > +L: keyrings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > +S: Supported > > > +F: include/keys/trusted_tee.h > > > +F: security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tee.c > > > + > > > KEYS/KEYRINGS > > > M: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > M: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > -- > > > 2.7.4 > > > > I'm sorry but I think I have changed my mind on this. This has been > > spinning for a while and sometimes conclusions change over the time. > > > > I don't think that we really need a separate subsystem tag. > > I don't see it as a separate subsystem but rather a kind of underlying > trust source (TEE) driver plugged into existing trusted keys > subsystem. We could relate it to the RNG subsystem as well where there > is a subsystem maintainer and specific driver maintainers. > > IMO, having a dedicated entry like this brings clarity in maintenance > and in future we may have more trust sources like this added where > everyone may not have access to all the trust sources to test. More entries pointing to the exact same stuff does not necessarily mean clarity in my books. > > I'd be for a > > new M-entry or R-entry to the existing subsystem tag. It's essential to > > have ack from someone with ARM and TEE knowledge but this way too heavy > > for the purpose. > > If you still think otherwise then I am fine with a new M-entry for > existing trusted keys subsystem as well. Adding a M-entry does makes sense because trusted keys backends can be based on various technologies and standard. It's a different in that sense than lets say a TPM hardware driver. > > I also see it the most manageable if the trusted keys PR's come from a > > single source. > > I echo here with you to have a single source for trusted keys PR's > irrespective of whether we go with a separate trust source entry or > update existing subsystem entry. > > -Sumit And I echo that oviously if there is someone to say the final ack about TEE, I will require that as the minimum to ever pick any of those changes :-) I would resolve this with just the M-entry, and we can *later on* restructure, if there is a need for that. These things are not sealed to stone. /Jarkko
