Re: [PATCH 1/3] powerpc/pseries: Correct secvar format representation for static key management
From: Andrew Donnellan <hidden>
Date: 2025-05-07 06:25:42
Also in:
linux-integrity, lkml
On Tue, 2025-05-06 at 15:27 -0400, Nayna Jain wrote:
quoted
It might be better to use something like "ibm,plpks-sb-static" in place of "ibm,plpks-sb-v0" to make it instantly clear that static mode doesn't use the same version numbering scheme as dynamic mode.Yes, "ibm,plpks-sb-static" is more clear compared to "ibm,plpks-sb- v0". However, I am not sure why "static mode doesn't use the same version numbering scheme as dynamic mode". Infact, as per my understanding, it is part of same versioning system. "0 represent static, 1 represent dynamic and anything beyond 1 would mean dynamic with additional features". Also, wouldn't having "ibm,pkpks-sb-static" and then "ibm,pkpk-sb-v1" for dynamic would be bit confusing? I mean being static is clear, but what they relate v1 to? Or did you mean to have "ibm,plpks-sb-static" and "ibm,plpks-sb-dynamic" for the two modes?
I don't feel strongly about this, as long as it's well documented. -- Andrew Donnellan OzLabs, ADL Canberra ajd@linux.ibm.com IBM Australia Limited