[PATCH v7 4/4] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for TEE based Trusted Keys

[Sumit Garg]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 07:52, Jarkko Sakkinen
<jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> 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 don't see it as a separate subsystem but rather a kind of underlying
trust source (TEE) driver plugged into existing trusted keys
subsystem. We could relate it to the RNG subsystem as well where there
is a subsystem maintainer and specific driver maintainers.

IMO, having a dedicated entry like this brings clarity in maintenance
and in future we may have more trust sources like this added where
everyone may not have access to all the trust sources to test.

> 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.

If you still think otherwise then I am fine with a new M-entry for
existing trusted keys subsystem as well.

>
> I also see it the most manageable if the trusted keys PR's come from a
> single source.

I echo here with you to have a single source for trusted keys PR's
irrespective of whether we go with a separate trust source entry or
update existing subsystem entry.

-Sumit

>
> /Jarkko