linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 21:27:33 -0500
From:   Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        dedekind1@...il.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
        david@...ma-star.at, wd@...x.de, sbabic@...x.de,
        dengler@...utronix.de, mhalcrow@...gle.com, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] UBIFS File Encryption v1

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 05:27:58PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 
> Shouldn't the branch be rebased to remove the CONFIG_VMAP_STACK fixes which are
> already in Linus' tree?
> 
> 	fscrypto: don't use on-stack buffer for key derivation
> 	fscrypto: don't use on-stack buffer for filename encryption
> 
> Otherwise we'll end up with duplicate commits.

Given that the ubifs folks are depending on the existing branch,
having duplicate commits is considered an acceptable tradeoff to not
rebasing a published commit that other trees are depending on.

I tell people that the ext4.git dev branch is a rewinding branch, so
people shouldn't be building other trees on top of it unless they are
willing to deal with the fact that it can be rebased.  However, i
didn't give that warning for the fscrypt branch, so I'd much rather
not rewind/rebase it.

						- Ted