linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.18 00/50] 3.18.64-stable review

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:   Sat, 5 Aug 2017 08:45:44 -0700
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
        patches@...nelci.org, ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.18 00/50] 3.18.64-stable review

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:57:29PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/04/2017 07:46 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:43:50PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 08/04/2017 04:15 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.18.64 release.
> > > > There are 50 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > > let me know.
> > > > 
> > > > Responses should be made by Sun Aug  6 23:15:34 UTC 2017.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Preliminary:
> > > 
> > > Lots of
> > > 
> > > lib/string.c:31:32: fatal error: asm/word-at-a-time.h
> > > 
> > > affecting several architectures.
> > > 
> > > alpha:
> > > 
> > > lib/string.c:217:4: error: implicit declaration of function 'zero_bytemask'
> > 
> > Hm, I think I need to add c753bf34c94e ("word-at-a-time.h: support
> > zero_bytemask() on alpha and tile"), right?  Any other arches failing?
> > 
> 
> Yes, you could say so. Is the offending patch really needed ?

The offending patch is for a subsystem that no one really uses, _but_
getting strscpy() into 3.18 is a good thing based on what I have seen
being used by the different vendor trees that rely on 3.18 at the
moment.

As proof of that, I did this backport a few weeks ago and didn't get it
correct :)

thanks,

greg k-h