linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] s390/vdso: getrandom() vdso implementation

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: <20240913142924.30385-B-hca@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 16:29:24 +0200
From: Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Stefan Liebler <stli@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] s390/vdso: getrandom() vdso implementation

Hi Jason,

> > On first glance, this series looks perfect. I can't comment too much on
> > the s390 parts, but first pass of the crypto/vdso/api parts looks spot
> > on. Nice going.
> > 
> > Were you thinking you'd like me to take these via the random.git tree
> > for 6.12 next week, or were you thinking of delaying it a release and
> > taking it into the arch tree for 6.13?
> 
> If you did want it to be in 6.12, assuming this series continues to look
> good, I think we'd still want it to be in -next for at least a week, so
> maybe that'd take the form of me sending an additional late pull during
> the merge window for this. Either way, I'll defer to your judgement
> here, as most of these changes are fiddly s390 things more than anything
> else.

This series is intended to go into 6.12. I don't see a reason to delay
this for a full release cycle. If something breaks we'll fix it, as usual.

So a late pull request would be perfectly fine. Alternatively we can
take this via s390 also for a second pull request; whatever you prefer
and is less work for you.