linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH] x86, relocs: Ignore relocations in .notes section on walk

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, 25 Mar 2024 13:23:31 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, Guixiong Wei <weiguixiong@...edance.com>,
	jgross@...e.com, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
	x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
	adobriyan@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, relocs: Ignore relocations in .notes section on
 walk_relocs

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 11:38:27AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > The earlier patch, commit aaa8736370db ("x86, relocs: Ignore relocations
> > in .notes section"), landed via my tree. It was sent out on Feb 22nd
> > (v1[1]) and got a suggestion from HPA and a Review from Juergen Gross.
> > I sent v2 Feb 27th[2] and it sat ignored for two weeks.
> 
> s/ignored for two weeks/missed in the avalance of patches/
> 
> > Since it was a 10 year old kernel address exposure, I sent it to Linus
> > on Mar 12th[3].
> 
> So is there some unwritten understanding somewhere which says that you
> should take tip patches through your tree?
> 
> Maybe I've missed it.
> 
> If there isn't, should we agree on something?
> 
> Because there clearly is a need for clarification here...

Yeah, happy to figure this out. How should I handle x86 patches that
maintainers haven't responded to when they have security bug fix
implications? For all the security hardening stuff I usually just ping
every few weeks, but those don't usually tend to be urgent.

In this case, I felt like since it was a trivial fix, HPA had already
implied it was a sensible change, and Juergen had reviewed it, it seemed
like it wouldn't be disruptive to take it, given the timing of the merge
window, etc.

-- 
Kees Cook