linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the integrity tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c17b1932657164acfbf98f8ab9ec08d88ba827e8.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 15:10:53 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton
	 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin	
 <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Linux
 Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steven Chen	 <chenste@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Tushar Sugandhi <tusharsu@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the integrity tree with the
 mm-nonmm-unstable tree

On Thu, 2025-05-29 at 14:27 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:23:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> wrote:
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the integrity tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >    kernel/kexec_file.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >    912e32afb858 ("kexec_file: use SHA-256 library API instead of
> > crypto_shash API")
> > 
> > from the mm-nonmm-unstable tree and commit:
> > 
> >    9ee8888a80fe ("ima: kexec: skip IMA segment validation after kexec soft
> > reboot")
> > 
> > from the integrity tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > diff --cc kernel/kexec_file.c
> > index ac915eabb901,0adb645072aa..000000000000
> > --- a/kernel/kexec_file.c
> > +++ b/kernel/kexec_file.c
> > @@@ -762,7 -800,17 +786,14 @@@ static int kexec_calculate_store_digest
> >    		if (ksegment->kbuf == pi->purgatory_buf)
> >    			continue;
> >    
> > + 		/*
> > + 		 * Skip the segment if ima_segment_index is set and matches
> > + 		 * the current index
> > + 		 */
> > + 		if (check_ima_segment_index(image, i))
> > + 			continue;
> > + 
> >   -		ret = crypto_shash_update(desc, ksegment->kbuf,
> >   -					  ksegment->bufsz);
> >   -		if (ret)
> >   -			break;
> >   +		sha256_update(&state, ksegment->kbuf, ksegment->bufsz);
> >    
> >    		/*
> >    		 * Assume rest of the buffer is filled with zero and
> 
> This is now a conflict between the mm-nonmm-stable tree and Linus' tree.

Thanks Stephen.  It looks good to me.

Mimi