linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5.2-rc5] Bluetooth: Fix regression with minimum encryption key size alignment

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: <F46C65F2-411F-4B24-BD3C-ED9F39F5E65E@holtmann.org>
Date:   Sat, 22 Jun 2019 20:21:07 +0200
From:   Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.2-rc5] Bluetooth: Fix regression with minimum
 encryption key size alignment

Hi Sasha,

> [This is an automated email]
> 
> This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag,
> fixing commit: d5bb334a8e17 Bluetooth: Align minimum encryption key size for LE and BR/EDR connections.
> 
> The bot has tested the following trees: v5.1.12, v4.19.53, v4.14.128, v4.9.182, v4.4.182.
> 
> v5.1.12: Build failed! Errors:
>    net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c:1356:24: error: ‘HCI_MIN_ENC_KEY_SIZE’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘SMP_MIN_ENC_KEY_SIZE’?
> 
> v4.19.53: Build failed! Errors:
>    net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c:1355:24: error: ‘HCI_MIN_ENC_KEY_SIZE’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘SMP_MIN_ENC_KEY_SIZE’?
> 
> v4.14.128: Build failed! Errors:
>    net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c:1355:24: error: ‘HCI_MIN_ENC_KEY_SIZE’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘SMP_MIN_ENC_KEY_SIZE’?
> 
> v4.9.182: Build OK!
> v4.4.182: Build OK!
> 
> How should we proceed with this patch?

either you reapply commit d5bb334a8e17 first or I have to send a version that combines both into a single commit for easy applying.

Regards

Marcel