linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/99] 5.10.176-rc1 review

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:   Tue, 21 Mar 2023 08:43:44 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux@...ck-us.net, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
        srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 00/99] 5.10.176-rc1 review

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:02:30PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 03:41, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.176 release.
> > > There are 99 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> >
> > > David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> > >     rust: arch/um: Disable FP/SIMD instruction to match x86
> >
> > Why is this patch here? It does not make sense for stable, it was only
> > in AUTOSEL for less than a week, and I already explained why it is
> > bad.
> >
> > "git grep KBUILD_RUSTFLAGS" if in doubt.
> 
> I agree: let's exclude this patch from -stable.
> 
> While the CFLAGS part of it is still _technically_ valid without Rust,
> it turns out it triggers a bug in gcc <11, so is probably best
> avoided. See:
> - https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99652
> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-um/20230318041555.4192172-1-davidgow@google.com/

Thanks, I've now dropped this from kernels 5.15 and older.

greg k-h