linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KEYS: trusted: fix use as module when CONFIG_TCG

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:   Fri, 30 Jul 2021 03:31:17 +0300
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
        Andreas Rammhold <andreas@...mhold.de>,
        David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KEYS: trusted: fix use as module when CONFIG_TCG_TPM=m

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 12:29:38AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> On 28.07.21 23:52, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 06:24:49AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> >> On 27.07.21 05:04, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >>>> Reported-by: Andreas Rammhold <andreas@...mhold.de>
> >>>> Fixes: 5d0682be3189 ("KEYS: trusted: Add generic trusted keys framework")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
> >>>
> >>> Is it absolutely need to do all this *just* to fix the bug?
> >>>
> >>> For a pure bug fix the most essential thing is to be able the backport
> >>> it to stable kernels.
> >>
> >> Not much happened in-between, so a backport should be trivial.
> >> I can provide these if needed.
> > 
> > "not much" is not good enough. It should be "not anything".
> 
> "Not much" [code that could conflict was added in-between].
> 
> I just checked and it applies cleanly on v5.13. On the off chance
> that this patch conflicts with another stable backport by the time
> it's backported, I'll get a friendly automated email and send out
> a rebased patch.

What you should do is to split this into patch that exactly
fixes the issue, and to one that adds the "niceties".

/Jarkko