linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sound-asoc tree with the crypto tree

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]

Date:   Tue, 12 May 2020 18:08:01 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Linux Crypto List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sound-asoc tree with the crypto
 tree

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 09:36:32AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 05:22:05PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > from the crypto tree and commit:

> > >   a1304cba816e ("ASoC: cros_ec_codec: allocate shash_desc dynamically")

> > > from the sound-asoc tree.

> I Cc'ed it to the people listed in MAINTAINERS for "CHROMEOS EC CODEC DRIVER".
> I guess wasn't enough and I should have added alsa-devel@...a-project.org too?

Yeah, you generally need to make sure the subsystem maintainers are
included as well as individual driver maintainers.

> > That doesn't seem ideal - Eric, Herbert can we get a branch with the
> > crypto patches in them to pull into the ASoC tree or something?

> We should just drop one of the patches.

> If you just want to eliminate the compiler warning about stack usage in
> wov_hotword_model_put(), then my patch in cryptodev would be better, as it moves
> the stack allocation into another function in another file.

> Alternatively, if you actually need to reduce the total stack usage (across all
> functions), then the kmalloc() patch in sound-asoc would be better.

Well, reducing the stack usage overall seems nicer overall - heads off
future problems if the struct grows or something, and if we still end up
allocating just as much on the stack then we'll have trouble at runtime
anyway - does that make sense?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)