linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

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]

Message-ID: <20121017214606.GD7083@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:46:06 -0700
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Romain Francoise <romain@...bokech.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32.60

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:38:48AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 07:11:12AM +0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 10/11/2012 07:31 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:58:04PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > >>> If you think these patches constitute a regression, I can revert them.
> > >>> However I'd like convincing arguments since they're here to help address
> > >>> a real issue.
> > >>
> > >> If I missed these when doing the random number generation backport for
> > >> 3.0, and I should add them there as well, please let me know.
> > > 
> > > At least I think they should not be in 2.6.32 without being in 3.0.
> > > Probably that Peter's opinion will help us decide whether they should
> > > go into 3.0 or 2.6.32 should revert them.
> > > 
> > 
> > I would strongly argue for at least one of the RDRAND-enabling versions
> > being in all supported kernels; the second (with Ted Ts'o's changes) is
> > better, but touches a *lot* of subsystems; the plain one is
> > self-contained but only helps RDRAND-enabled hardware.
> > 
> > Without these patches the random subsystem has a critical security flaw,
> > which puts it into the scope for stable.
> 
> That's clearly what I understood, thanks Peter for confirming ! So I won't
> revert the patches unless a regression is reported in which case we'll
> prefer to fix it.
> 
> Greg, I think it would be better to get them into 3.0 too. The ones I used
> were (prefixed with 'X' if they are already in 3.0) :
>    24da9c26 x86, cpu: Add CPU flags for F16C and RDRND

This showed up in 2.6.36

>    7ccafc5f x86, cpufeature: Update CPU feature RDRND to RDRAND

This showed up in 3.0

>  X 63d77173 random: Add support for architectural random hooks
>  X bd29e568 fix typo/thinko in get_random_bytes()
>    628c6246 x86, random: Architectural inlines to get random integers with RDRAND
>    49d859d7 x86, random: Verify RDRAND functionality and allow it to be disabled

I've now queued up these two as they were relevant here.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/