linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] omap3 crypto fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 15 Mar 2015 10:59:32 +0100
From:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
To:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc:	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
	Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@...il.com>,
	Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] omap3 crypto fixes

On Sunday 08 March 2015 17:35:13 Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2015, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Friday 06 March 2015 23:23:06 Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:36:32AM -0800, Tony Lindgren 
wrote:
> > > > Are there any fixes in this series that should go into
> > > > v4.0-rc series, or can it all wait for v4.1?
> > > 
> > > I think these all should wait for v4.1.
> > > 
> > > A.
> > 
> > I would suggest to include at least patches 01, 04, 06.
> > Probably those could go to -stable tree... but this
> > decision is up to you.
> 
> I'm not sure patch 1 is a fix.  As far as I know we haven't
> run into any issues with it on real hardware - only on QEMU -
> unless you know otherwise, Pali?  Are we sure that the QEMU
> model behavior matches the hardware?
> 
> 
> - Paul

Patch 1 check for return value of more functions. If real HW or 
software emulated HW (in qemu) does not support e.g. aes then 
kernel show oops message, because kernel does not check return 
values and try to touch non-existent HW. So I think patch 1 is 
really fix. In my opinion if something can fail, then kernel 
should check if it failed. And not expect that function call 
always pass.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@...il.com

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (199 bytes)