linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64-fixes 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:29:35 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     broonie@...nel.org
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64-fixes
 tree

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 08:03:18PM +0100, broonie@...nel.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   13b0566962914 ("vmlinux.lds.h: CFI: Reduce alignment of jump-table to function alignment")
> 
> from the arm64-fixes tree and commit:
> 
>   89245600941e4 ("cfi: Switch to -fsanitize=kcfi")
> 
> from the kspp tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
> 
> diff --cc include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> index ae63dd8a3a2cf,7501edfce11ea..0000000000000
> --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
> 
> [The block updated in Will's commit is just plain removed with no
> equivalent in kspp]

Right, this is correct. 13b0566962914 (a fix for the previous CFI
implementation) becomes useful for -stable backports, but is entirely
removed for the new CFI implementation.

-- 
Kees Cook