linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [FIXED v2] Replace magic for trusting the secondary keyring with #define

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: <20180816080259.GA6241@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:02:59 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:     Yannik Sembritzki <yannik@...britzki.me>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
        Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [FIXED v2] Replace magic for trusting the secondary
 keyring with #define

On 08/16/18 at 09:43am, Yannik Sembritzki wrote:
> On 16.08.2018 03:11, Dave Young wrote:
> > Instead of fix your 1st patch in 2nd patch, I would suggest to
> > switch the patch order.  In 1st patch change the common code to use
> > the new macro and in 2nd patch you can directly fix the kexec code
> > with TRUST_SECONDARY_KEYRING.
> My reasoning for doing it in this order was that the first patch which
> fixes the bug itself should be merged into stable, while the refactoring
> doesn't necessarily have to. I'm not familiar with the linux development
> process, so please correct me if this should be done in another fashion.

Frankly I'm not sure about the stable process.  But personally I do not 
like the order.

Cced Greg for opinions about stable concern.

> 
> Yannik