> On Feb 6, 2020, at 10:07 AM, Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/2020 8:42 AM, Eric Snowberg wrote:
>
>> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ static const char * const keyring_name[INTEGRITY_KEYRING_MAX] = {
>> ".ima",
>> #endif
>> ".platform",
>> + ".builtin_trusted_keys",
>> };
>> #ifdef CONFIG_IMA_KEYRINGS_PERMIT_SIGNED_BY_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY
>> @@ -45,8 +47,11 @@ static struct key *integrity_keyring_from_id(const unsigned int id)
>> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> if (!keyring[id]) {
>> - keyring[id] =
>> - request_key(&key_type_keyring, keyring_name[id], NULL);
>> + if (id == INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL)
>> + keyring[id] = VERIFY_USE_SECONDARY_KEYRING;
>
> Since "Built-In Trusted Keyring" or "Secondary Trusted Keyring" is used, would it be more appropriate to name this identifier INTEGRITY_KEYRING_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY?
I’m open to changing INTEGRITY_KEYRING_KERNEL to INTEGRITY_KEYRING_BUILTIN_OR_SECONDARY if that seems more appropriate.
