linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.12 26/84] x86/xen/efi: Initialize only the EFI struct members used by Xen

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: <aa8a0a15-a2a6-a5c2-9a40-78481b231268@suse.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2017 08:32:57 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
        matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.12 26/84] x86/xen/efi: Initialize only the EFI struct
 members used by Xen

On 20/07/17 14:33, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:16:39AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:39:10AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Greg,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 11:43:32AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> 4.12-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you skip this patch for 4.11? IMO it should be applied there too.
>>>
>>> The thing is, this patch should probaly not even be in v4.12, as it should only
>>> make any difference if there's a separate _bug_ in the kernel.
>>>
>>> This patch makes things more robust going forward, but I question that it needs to
>>> be in -stable.
>>
>> Yeah, good point, I'm going to go drop it entirely from the 4.12-stable
>> tree as it obviously isn't stable material, sorry for not catching that
>> before.
> 
> Wait a minute. IIRC, Juergen told me last week that this patch fixes a bug
> found/assigned by/to him. Juergen? If it is true then I would apply it to
> stable. If I am wrong you can drop it.

I'm not sure both patches (this one and upstream 457ea3f7e97881f) are
needed. I have got a report about a failing boot and with both patches
applied the boot is working. I will ask if 457ea3f7e97881f alone works,
too. If it doesn't I'll request this patch to be added to stable again.


Juergen