linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: Support glibc 2.26 siginfo

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]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jL6MTMgb+h-hJhRLDO3zvv7dM5cCjKg+VXPzG9Q06NeZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:02:27 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/seccomp: Support glibc 2.26 siginfo_t.h

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:32:46PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> The 2.26 release of glibc changed how siginfo_t is defined, and the earlier
>>> work-around to using the kernel definition are no longer needed. The old
>>> way needs to stay around for a while, though.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>>> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
>>> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
>>> Cc: linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>> Seth, can you double check this to confirm it works for you too? This builds
>>> and tests correctly for me on both Ubuntu 17.10 (-proposed) with glibc 2.26
>>> and with earlier distros with 2.24, etc.
>>
>> It builds and tests correctly for me too, with both glibc 2.26 and 2.24.
>>
>> Tested-by: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>
>
> Awesome, thanks!
>
> Shuah, is it possible to land this for v4.14? If it has to wait,
> that's probably okay, as I've marked it for -stable, so it'll get
> where it needs to be eventually. :)

Friendly ping, Shuah, are you able to take this?

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security