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

[Eric Snowberg]

> 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?