linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/286] 5.10.209-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]

Message-ID: <2024012646-glove-cabana-6e64@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 10:48:24 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, shuah@...nel.org, patches@...nelci.org,
	lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, pavel@...x.de, jonathanh@...dia.com,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com,
	srw@...dewatkins.net, rwarsow@....de, conor@...nel.org,
	allen.lkml@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/286] 5.10.209-rc1 review

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:17:23AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 1/26/24 09:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 08:46:42AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 1/22/24 15:55, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 5.10.209 release.
> > > > There are 286 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.
> > > > 
> > > > Responses should be made by Wed, 24 Jan 2024 23:56:49 +0000.
> > > > Anything received after that time might be too late.
> > > > 
> > > [ ... ]
> > > 
> > > > zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@...edance.com>
> > > >       virtio-crypto: implement RSA algorithm
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Curious: Why was this (and its subsequent fixes) backported to v5.10.y ?
> > > It is quite beyond a bug fix. Also, unless I am really missing something,
> > > the series (or at least this patch) was not applied to v5.15.y, so we now
> > > have functionality in v5.10.y which is not in v5.15.y.
> > 
> > See the commit text, it was a dependency of a later fix and documented
> > as such.
> > 
> > Having it in 5.10 and not 5.15 is a bit odd, I agree, so patches are
> > gladly accepted :)
> > 
> 
> We reverted the entire series from the merge because it results in a build
> failure for us.
> 
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/drivers/crypto/virtio/virtio_crypto_akcipher_algs.c:10:
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/mpi.h:21:
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/scatterlist.h:5:
> In file included from /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/string.h:293:
> /home/groeck/src/linux-chromeos/include/linux/fortify-string.h:512:4: error: call to __read_overflow2_field declared with 'warning' attribute: detected read beyond size of field (2nd parameter); maybe use struct_group()? [-Werror,-Wattribute-warning]
>                         __read_overflow2_field(q_size_field, size);
> 
> I also see that upstream (starting with 6.1) when trying to build it with clang,
> so I guess it is one of those bug-for-bug compatibility things. I really have
> no idea what causes it, or why we don't see the problem when building
> chromeos-6.1 or chromeos-6.6, but (so far) only with chromeos-5.10 after
> merging 5.10.209 into it. Making things worse, the problem isn't _always_
> seen. Sometimes I can compile the file in 6.1.y without error, sometimes not.
> I have no idea what triggers the problem. Of course, on top of all that,
> the error message is completely useless.
> 
> Either case, we don't use that code in chromeos-5.10, so reverting the
> entire series from the merge was the easiest way to proceed. But we really
> don't have an incentive to apply the series to v5.15.y because we don't
> need/use it there, and we might end up having to revert it from there
> as well if it is applied.

If this is causing build issues, I'll drop this, I was worried about it
during review but no one had any reports then, but now it looks like it
should be reworked.  I'll go revert them, thanks.

greg k-h