linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 0/3] Backport handling -ESTALE policy update failure to 4.19

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

Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 08:44:51 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     "Guozihua (Scott)" <guozihua@...wei.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zohar@...ux.ibm.com,
        paul@...l-moore.com, luhuaxin1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 0/3] Backport handling -ESTALE policy update failure
 to 4.19

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 09:10:13AM +0800, Guozihua (Scott) wrote:
> On 2023/2/3 1:20, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 10:39:49AM +0800, GUO Zihua wrote:
> >> This series backports patches in order to resolve the issue discussed
> >> here:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/selinux/389334fe-6e12-96b2-6ce9-9f0e8fcb85bf@huawei.com/
> >>
> >> This required backporting the non-blocking LSM policy update mechanism
> >> prerequisite patches.
> > 
> > Do we not need this on newer kernels? Why only 4.19?
> > 
> Hi Sasha.
> 
> The issue mentioned in this patch was fixed already in the newer kernel.
> All three patches here are backports from mainline.

Ok, now queued up, thanks.

greg k-h