linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64/alternatives: move length validation inside the subsection

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: <20200730152330.GA3128@gaia>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:23:31 +0100
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/alternatives: move length validation inside the
 subsection

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:13:05AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:22 AM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 02:51:52PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > Commit f7b93d42945c ("arm64/alternatives: use subsections for replacement
> > > sequences") breaks LLVM's integrated assembler, because due to its
> > > one-pass design, it cannot compute instruction sequence lengths before the
> > > layout for the subsection has been finalized. This change fixes the build
> > > by moving the .org directives inside the subsection, so they are processed
> > > after the subsection layout is known.
> > >
> > > Link: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1078
> > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.14+
> >
> > Commit f7b93d42945c went in 5.8-rc4. Why is this cc stable from 4.14? If
> > Will picks it up for 5.8, it doesn't even need a cc stable.
> 
> Greg or Sasha can probably answer why, but this patch is in 4.14.189,
> 4.19.134, 5.4.53, and 5.7.10, which ended up breaking some downstream
> Android kernel builds.

I see but I don't think we need the explicit cc stable for 4.14. That's
why the Fixes tag is important. If a patch was back-ported, the
subsequent fixes should be picked by the stable maintainers as well.

-- 
Catalin