[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: add linux-security-module mailing list to TPM drivers

Jarkko Sakkinen jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com
Wed Feb 20 15:04:45 UTC 2019

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:03:57AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> On Wed Feb 20 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:58:46PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote:
> > > I've seen requests to add linux-security-module to tpm patch
> > > submissions a couple of times recently, so just add the list
> > > to MAINTAINERS so get_maintainers.pl will mention it.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Peter Huewe <peterhuewe at gmx.de>
> > > Cc: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com>
> > > Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at ziepe.ca>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel at redhat.com>
> > 
> > I guess James should say something about this.
> > 
> > /Jarkko
> Sorry, I meant to add James as well.
> Maybe this isn't needed. Do you only want certain patches
> being cc'd to linux-security-module? Looking back at
> recent patches, it looked like it was a general request.
> If it is, I'll be more likely to remember if get_maintainers.pl
> brings it up. :)

I'm all open here. Not sure which practices apply to IMA. I kind of tend
to dilate to question does it make sense to CC to LSM for two reasons:

1. I think the original reason was that tpmdd mailing list was small.
Now with the new linux-integrity mailing list up and running there is
more eyes looking at the code. And more importantly the people are
subscribed who use TPM for something, like IMA developers.
2. I don't remember ever reading within the time that I've been
maintaining even a single comment from anyone that works with LSM's. The
value of CC'ing there is not very significant, which means that most of
the time the TPM traffic is just noise on that list.


More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list