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.
I mean, less flagging better if it does not cause harm is already
great without higher level goals.
BR, Jarkko
