linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 01/29] bluetooth: Switch SMP to crypto_cipher_encrypt

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 06:17:30 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
	Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/29] bluetooth: Switch SMP to crypto_cipher_encrypt_one()

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
>>>>>> SMP does ECB crypto on stack buffers.  This is complicated and
>>>>>> fragile, and it will not work if the stack is virtually allocated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switch to the crypto_cipher interface, which is simpler and safer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
>>>>>> Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>
>>>>>> Cc: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
>>>>>> Cc: linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org
>>>>>> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>>>>>> Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>>>>>> Acked-and-tested-by: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...el.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> net/bluetooth/smp.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> patch has been applied to bluetooth-next tree.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly carrying this separately will delay the virtual kernel stacks feature by a
>>>> kernel cycle, because it's a must-have prerequisite.
>>>
>>> I can take it back out, but then I have the fear the the ECDH change to use KPP for SMP might be the one that has to wait a kernel cycle. Either way is fine with me, but I want to avoid nasty merge conflicts in the Bluetooth SMP code.
>>
>> Nothing goes wrong if an identical patch is queued in both places,
>> right?  Or, if you prefer not to duplicate it, could one of you commit
>> it and the other one pull it?  Ingo, given that this is patch 1 in the
>> series and unlikely to change, if you want to make this whole thing
>> have a separate branch in -tip, this could live there for starters.
>> (But, if you do so, please make sure you base off a very new copy of
>> Linus' tree -- the series is heavily dependent on the thread_info
>> change he applied a few days ago.)
>
> so what are doing now? I take this back out or we keep it in and let git deal with it when merging the trees?
>

Unless Ingo says otherwise, let's let git deal with it.