linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] riscv: Fixup static

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: <mhng-847e71cf-64bc-464b-8d09-3bcec40aa491@palmerdabbelt-glaptop1>
Date:   Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@...gle.com>
To:     schwab@...ux-m68k.org
CC:     guoren@...nel.org, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        anup@...infault.org, greentime.hu@...ive.com, zong.li@...ive.com,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, tglx@...utronix.de, tycho@...ho.ws,
        nickhu@...estech.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        guoren@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org
Subject:     Re: [PATCH V2 1/3] riscv: Fixup static_obj() fail

On Mon, 05 Oct 2020 01:25:22 PDT (-0700), schwab@...ux-m68k.org wrote:
> On Sep 14 2020, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>> How should we proceed to get that fixed in time for 5.9? For the older
>> branches where it has been backported (so far 5.7 and 5.8), should we
>> just get that commit reverted instead?
>
> Why is this still broken?

Sorry, I hadn't seen this.  I'm not seeing a boot failure on 5.9-rc8 with just
CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCPOY=y in addition to defconfig (on QEMU, though I doubt
that's relevant here).  It looks like the fix is to essentially revert this,
which I'm fine with, but I'd prefer to have a failing test to make sure this
doesn't break again.

Guo: I don't see an actual patch (signed off and such) posted for this, do you
mind posting one?  Otherwise I'll take a crack at constructing the revert
myself.