> On Nov 18, 2021, at 5:32 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Is the subject line left over from the original patch? Shouldn't it
> be "link machine trusted keys to secondary_trusted_keys".
Yes, you are right, this was left over from the original patch. I’ll update
the heading in the next round.
> 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.
I’ll also reverse the ordering in the next round too. Thanks.
