> On Oct 17, 2024, at 10:13 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 09:55 -0600, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>> Remove the CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM_KEYRING ifdef check so this
>> pattern does not need to be repeated with new code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> certs/system_keyring.c | 6 ------
>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/certs/system_keyring.c b/certs/system_keyring.c
>> index 9de610bf1f4b..e344cee10d28 100644
>> --- a/certs/system_keyring.c
>> +++ b/certs/system_keyring.c
>> @@ -24,9 +24,7 @@ static struct key *secondary_trusted_keys;
>> #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_MACHINE_KEYRING
>> static struct key *machine_trusted_keys;
>> #endif
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM_KEYRING
>> static struct key *platform_trusted_keys;
>> -#endif
>>
>> extern __initconst const u8 system_certificate_list[];
>> extern __initconst const unsigned long system_certificate_list_size;
>> @@ -345,11 +343,7 @@ int verify_pkcs7_message_sig(const void *data,
>> size_t len,
>> trusted_keys = builtin_trusted_keys;
>> #endif
>> } else if (trusted_keys == VERIFY_USE_PLATFORM_KEYRING) {
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_PLATFORM_KEYRING
>> trusted_keys = platform_trusted_keys;
>> -#else
>> - trusted_keys = NULL;
>> -#endif
>> if (!trusted_keys) {
>> ret = -ENOKEY;
>> pr_devel("PKCS#7 platform keyring is not
>> available\n");
>
> Just to check with the argument that any commit should bring the Git
> tree to another "good state". Why this was flagged? What would be the
> collateral damage if only this commit was picked and put to a pull
> request? No intentions to do that, this more like forming a better
> understanding what is at stake here.
>
> I.e. I get that you need this for subsequent commits but I think the
> commit message should also have like explanation why this is a legit
> change otherwise.
Thanks for taking a look at this, I will add a better explanation in the
next round.
