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  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]
Date:   Mon, 17 Feb 2020 17:09:00 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] efi: READ_ONCE rng seed size before munmap

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 16:54, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 04:23:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 13:34, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This function is consistent with using size instead of seed->size
> > > (except for one place that this patch fixes), but it reads seed->size
> > > without using READ_ONCE, which means the compiler might still do
> > > something unwanted. So, this commit simply adds the READ_ONCE
> > > wrapper.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
> > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> >
> > Thanks Jason
> >
> > I've queued this in efi/urgent with a fixes: tag rather than a cc:
> > stable, since it only applies clean to v5.4 and later.
>
> Why do that?  That just makes it harder for me to know to pick it up for
> 5.4 and newer.
>
> > We'll need a
> > backport to 4.14 and 4.19 as well, which has a trivial conflict
> > (s/add_bootloader_randomness/add_device_randomness/) but we'll need to
> > wait for this patch to hit Linus's tree first.
>
> Ok, if you are going to send it on to me for stable, that's fine, but
> usually you can just wait for the rejection notices for older kernels
> before having to worry about this.  In other words, you are doing more
> work than you have to here :)
>

So just

Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>

without any context is your preferred method?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists