linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 39/39] crypto: xts - simplify error handling in ->create()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200516013509.GA118329@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 May 2020 18:35:09 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.14 39/39] crypto: xts - simplify error handling
 in ->create()

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 08:55:30PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:08:43PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 02:54:56PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> > > 
> > > [ Upstream commit 732e540953477083082e999ff553622c59cffd5f ]
> > > 
> > > Simplify the error handling in the XTS template's ->create() function by
> > > taking advantage of crypto_drop_skcipher() now accepting (as a no-op) a
> > > spawn that hasn't been grabbed yet.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Please don't backport this patch.  It's a cleanup (not a fix) that depends on
> > patches in 5.6, which you don't seem to be backporting.
> 
> For 5.6-4.19 I grabbed these to take:
> 
> 	1a263ae60b04 ("gcc-10: avoid shadowing standard library 'free()' in crypto")
> 
> cleanly. I'll drop it as it's mostly to avoid silly gcc10 warnings, but
> I just wanted to let you know the reason they ended up here.
> 

If the gcc 10 warning fix is needed, then you should just backport it on its
own.  It just renames a function, so it seems it's trivial to fix the conflict?

- Eric