------- Comment From naynj...@ibm.com 2021-10-14 11:12 EDT------- (In reply to comment #40) > Hi Nayna, > > I agree that Reviewed-by or Tested-by are in general helpful, but these tags > follow strict rules in Linux kernel (see: "Reviewer's statement of > oversight" in kernel documentation). I cannot provide such tags without > performing review or testing. Unfortunately I cannot do the review because > it is not an area of my expertise. About testing - I simply cannot test it.
Thanks Krzysztof for your response. Of course, you should give Reviewed- by and Tested-by only if you actually do it. Sorry, if I assumed the details here. When I asked for the tags, what I meant was that if someone from Canonical can actually review and test the patch and then send their Reviewed-By, Tested-by. Sorry for the misunderstanding and I hope it is clarified now. In case it helps, I guess it should be possible to test it on any x86/Power system by embedding your own generated key in .platform keyring using this patch and ensure verified kexec on secure boot enabled system. > > Instead, you or your colleagues should engage in discussions with > open-source upstream community and resolve the kbuild reported bugs and > address raised concerns (about missing use-case). None of additional tags > would help in avoiding doing it. > v3 version of the patch has addressed all the concerns which are raised till now. https://lore.kernel.org/linux- integrity/20211004145258.14056-1-na...@linux.ibm.com/ Thanks & Regards, - Nayna -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1903288 Title: Power guest secure boot with static keys: kernel portion To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-power-systems/+bug/1903288/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
