Hi Eric,
Is the subject line left over from the original patch? Shouldn't it
be "link machine trusted keys to secondary_trusted_keys".
On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 19:15 -0500, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> Allow the .machine keyring to be linked to the secondary_trusted_keys.
> After the link is created, keys contained in the .machine keyring will
> automatically be searched when searching secondary_trusted_keys.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v3: Initial version
> v4: Unmodified from v3
> v5: Rename to machine keyring
> v7: Unmodified from v5
> ---
> certs/system_keyring.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/certs/system_keyring.c b/certs/system_keyring.c
> index ba732856ebd0..2a2dc70b126c 100644
> --- a/certs/system_keyring.c
> +++ b/certs/system_keyring.c
> @@ -101,6 +101,9 @@ static __init struct key_restriction *get_secondary_restriction(void)
> void __init set_machine_trusted_keys(struct key *keyring)
> {
> machine_trusted_keys = keyring;
> +
> + if (key_link(secondary_trusted_keys, machine_trusted_keys) < 0)
> + panic("Can't link (machine) trusted keyrings\n");
> }
>
> /**
In general is the ordering of the patches "bisect safe"[1]? Only in
the next patch is machine_trusted_keys set. In this case, either
merge the two patches or reverse their order.
thanks,
Mimi
[1] Refer to the section "Separate your changes" in
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst.
