linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 10 (arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec

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:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 15:15:17 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Eric DeVolder <eric.devolder@...cle.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jul 10
 (arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c)



On 7/10/23 14:27, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/10/23 15:23, Eric DeVolder wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/10/23 15:11, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/9/23 18:38, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Changes since 20230707:
>>>>
>>>
>>> on s390:
>>>
>>> ../arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c: In function 's390_verify_sig':
>>> ../arch/s390/kernel/machine_kexec_file.c:69:15: error: implicit declaration of function 'verify_pkcs7_signature' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>     69 |         ret = verify_pkcs7_signature(kernel, kernel_len,
>>>        |               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
>>>
>>>
>>> Full randconfig file is attached.
>>>
>>
>> Randy,
>> Thanks for this. This appears to be randconfig testing against linux-next.
>> As of right now, linux-next does not contain the v5 that I posted friday.
>> The v5 posted friday was picked up by Andrew and over the weekend no fails
>> discovered, and the series currently sits in mm-everything branch. So hopefully
>> it will appear soon in linux-next!
>>
>> Let me know if I misunderstand the situation.
>> Thanks!
>> eric
> 
> Well the root cause is a missing SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION. This was discussed
> through MODULE_SIG_FORMAT thread. I don't think v5 changed anything with
> respect to this issue, so it will likely reveal itself again.
> 
> Since it was agreed to drop MODULE_SIG_FORMAT, and my attempt to select
> SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION results in same circular dependency as with
> MODULE_SIG_FORMAT, I'm unsure how to proceed.
> 
> The arch/s390/Kconfig S390 option has a 'select KEXEC' (but not KEXEC_FILE),
> maybe we consider adding a 'select SYSTEM_DATA_VERIFICATION' as well?

Sure, since some other configs select it also.
And as long as it doesn't cause a circular dependency problem.

thanks.
-- 
~Randy