[PATCH v7 4/4] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for TEE based Trusted Keys
Jarkko Sakkinen
jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com
Tue Oct 13 02:21:57 UTC 2020
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 03:37:48PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> Add MAINTAINERS entry for TEE based Trusted Keys framework.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org>
> Acked-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> MAINTAINERS | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> index 48aff80..eb3d889 100644
> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> @@ -9663,6 +9663,14 @@ F: include/keys/trusted-type.h
> F: include/keys/trusted_tpm.h
> F: security/keys/trusted-keys/
>
> +KEYS-TRUSTED-TEE
> +M: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg at linaro.org>
> +L: linux-integrity at vger.kernel.org
> +L: keyrings at vger.kernel.org
> +S: Supported
> +F: include/keys/trusted_tee.h
> +F: security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_tee.c
> +
> KEYS/KEYRINGS
> M: David Howells <dhowells at redhat.com>
> M: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com>
> --
> 2.7.4
I'm sorry but I think I have changed my mind on this. This has been
spinning for a while and sometimes conclusions change over the time.
I don't think that we really need a separate subsystem tag. I'd be for a
new M-entry or R-entry to the existing subsystem tag. It's essential to
have ack from someone with ARM and TEE knowledge but this way too heavy
for the purpose.
I also see it the most manageable if the trusted keys PR's come from a
single source.
/Jarkko
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list