Re: [GIT PULL for v7.4] vfs keyring

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2026-10-26 at 21:35 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 10:10:54AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > It would actually have been nice to copy the keyrings list and
> > maintainers on this.  I don't think there's an objection but not
> > cc'ing the list and maintainers makes it look like some type of end
> > run.
> 
> Uhm, they were?...
> 
>     From: Andrew Halaney <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>,  Daniel Borkmann
> <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
> Alasdair Kergon <agk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mike
>             Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>,  Mikulas Patocka
> <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>, Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
> David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>,
>             Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>,  Paul Moore
> <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>,  "Serge E.
> Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Eric
>             Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>,  "Theodore Y. Ts'o"
> <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>,  Shuah Khan
> <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Randy
>             Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Cc: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 
> keyrings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>                                                                 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By *this* I meant this pull request, not the original patches.  I can't
really tell if David's comment on the patches was simply something that
might be done later or something he'd like to be done now, but cc'ing
him on the pull request might sharpen the need to clarify.

>             fsverity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> Andrew Halaney <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,  "Christian Brauner (Amutable)"
> <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>     Subject: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] keys: Add well known IDs for fs-
> verity/dm-verity keys
>     Message-Id:
> <20261008-ajhalaney-dmverity-key-identifier-v2-0-008456d189cb@amutabl
> e.com>
> 
> > > Christian Brauner (2):
> > >       Merge bpf keyring work from of
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next
> > >       Merge patch series "keys: Add well known IDs for fs-
> > > verity/dm-
> > > verity keys"
> > 
> > This is a bit nasty because the keyring specs get renumbered inside
> > the merges ... it would have been much clearer to people looking at
> > the history if the patches were rebased instead.
> 
> Nothing got renumbered. Both merges are clean.
> The only commits that touch the ids are Daniel's bpf one adding -9 in
> bpf-next and Andrew's two adding -10 and -11. The branch is the three
> patches on top of the bits shared with bpf-next with an explanation
> why this was needed.

OK, so the second merge commit is because it was based on a version of
bpf-next that was pulled into 7.2-rc2 (even though the top of bpf-next
at that point was already merged into 7.2-rc2).  I understand now.

> A rebase would given the same commit but would've meant invalidating
> things that were already in -next.

-next is a rebasing tree.  But you mean things in your tree others had
already relied on?  Yes, I get there's a balance here.

Regards,

James