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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:52:52 +0000
From:   Ignat Korchagin <>
        James Bottomley <>,,,,, Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,,,
        linux-kernel <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        Greg KH <>,,,,,,,
        kernel-team <>
Subject: Potential config regression after 89cde455 ("kexec: consolidate kexec
 and crash options into kernel/Kconfig.kexec")

Good day!

We have recently started to evaluate Linux 6.6 and noticed that we
cannot disable CONFIG_KEXEC anymore, but keep CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP
enabled. It seems to be related to commit 89cde455 ("kexec:
consolidate kexec and crash options into kernel/Kconfig.kexec"), where
a CONFIG_KEXEC dependency was added to CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP.

In our current kernel (Linux 6.1) we only enable CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE
with enforced signature check to support the kernel crash dumping
functionality and would like to keep CONFIG_KEXEC disabled for
security reasons [1].

I was reading the long commit message, but the reason for adding
CONFIG_KEXEC as a dependency for CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP evaded me. And I
believe from the implementation perspective CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE should
suffice here (as we successfully used it for crashdumps on Linux 6.1).

Is there a reason for adding this dependency or is it just an
oversight? Would some solution of requiring either CONFIG_KEXEC or



Powered by blists - more mailing lists