Re: [PATCH v8 09/17] KEYS: Rename get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 05:21:45PM +0000, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Nov 26, 2021, at 5:49 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 23:41 -0500, Eric Snowberg wrote:
> >> In preparation for returning either the existing
> >> restrict_link_by_builtin_and_secondary_trusted or the upcoming
> >> restriction that includes the trusted builtin, secondary and
> >> machine keys, to improve clarity, rename
> >> get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction to get_secondary_restriction.
> >> 
> >> Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> v6: Initial version
> >> v7: Unmodified from v7
> >> v8: Code unmodified from v7, added Mimi's Reviewed-by
> >> ---
> >>  certs/system_keyring.c | 4 ++--
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/certs/system_keyring.c b/certs/system_keyring.c
> >> index 692365dee2bd..8f1f87579819 100644
> >> --- a/certs/system_keyring.c
> >> +++ b/certs/system_keyring.c
> >> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ int restrict_link_by_builtin_and_secondary_trusted(
> >>   * Allocate a struct key_restriction for the "builtin and secondary trust"
> >>   * keyring. Only for use in system_trusted_keyring_init().
> >>   */
> >> -static __init struct key_restriction *get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction(void)
> >> +static __init struct key_restriction *get_secondary_restriction(void)
> >>  {
> >>         struct key_restriction *restriction;
> >>  
> >> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static __init int system_trusted_keyring_init(void)
> >>                                KEY_USR_VIEW | KEY_USR_READ | KEY_USR_SEARCH |
> >>                                KEY_USR_WRITE),
> >>                               KEY_ALLOC_NOT_IN_QUOTA,
> >> -                             get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction(),
> >> +                             get_secondary_restriction(),
> >>                               NULL);
> >>         if (IS_ERR(secondary_trusted_keys))
> >>                 panic("Can't allocate secondary trusted keyring\n");
> > 
> > This is wrong order.
> > 
> > You should first do the changes that make the old name
> > obsolete and only after that have a patch that does the
> > rename. Unfortunately, this patch cannot possibly acked
> > with the current order.
> 
> I can change the order, but I'm confused how this would work for a git bisect. 
> If the rename happens afterwards, now two patches will always need to be 
> reverted instead of the possibility of one.  Is this your expectation?

I'd drop this patch altogether. Old name is a bit ugly but does it matter
all that much?

You already 16 patches without this.

/Jarkko