linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10 00/64] 3.10.97-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:	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:24:11 -0700
From:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux@...ck-us.net, shuah.kh@...sung.com, patches@...nelci.org,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10 00/64] 3.10.97-stable review

On 02/17/2016 04:33 PM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 02/17/2016 04:26 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 01:36:46PM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>>> Compiled, but didn't boot on my test system.
>>>>> Unfortunately, I won't be able to debug this
>>>>> until Wednesday.
>>>>
>>>> Were you able to figure this out?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am working on bisect today. I should have something
>>> for you later this afternoon.
>>
>> Just FWIW I have it running here in KVM with a simplified config, so it
>> might be something related to a specific feature or driver but not
>> necessarily in the core itself.
>>
> 
> git bisect tells me it is
> 
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>     remoteproc: avoid stack overflow in debugfs file
> 
> This commit is also in 3.14.61-rc1 which worked just fine.
> It is in 4.3.6-rc1 which does fail.
> 
> I am building without it now to make sure it is the
> offending commit
> 

Sanity returns. Please remove the following commit:

Ryan Ware <ware@...ux.intel.com>
    EVM: Use crypto_memneq() for digest comparisons

This commit can't stand on its own.  crypto_memneq()
isn't defined. With this change removed, it all works
well.

  CC      security/integrity/evm/evm_main.o^M
security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c: In function â<80><98>evm_verify_hmacâ<80><99>:^M
security/integrity/evm/evm_main.c:132:3: error: implicit declaration of function â<80><98>crypto_memneqâ<80><99> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]^M
   rc = crypto_memneq(xattr_data->digest, calc.digest,^M
   ^^M
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors^M
make[3]: *** [security/integrity/evm/evm_main.o] Error 1^M
make[2]: *** [security/integrity/evm] Error 2^M
make[1]: *** [security/integrity] Error 2^M
make: *** [security] Error 2^M

I think I didn't run make clean and ended up with a
bad install.

thanks,
-- Shuah



-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@....samsung.com | (970) 217-8978