linux-kernel - Re: 6.17 crashes in ipv6 code when booted fips=1 [was: [GIT PULL] Crypto Update for 6.17]

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: <e1dc974a-eb36-4090-8d5f-debcb546ccb7@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 21:11:41 +0200
From: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, "nstange@...e.de" <nstange@...e.de>,
        "Wang, Jay" <wanjay@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: 6.17 crashes in ipv6 code when booted fips=1 [was: [GIT PULL]
 Crypto Update for 6.17]


On 06/10/2025 18:19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I think the other way of writing that is "fips=1 is and will remain 
> irrelevant in the real world as long as it's that black-and-white".

On 06/10/2025 19:11, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2025 at 09:32, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Okay, so I get that we don't like fips=1 around here (I'm not a
>> particularly big fan myself), but what's with the snark? fips=1 exists
>> in mainline and obviously has users. I'm just trying to make sure it
>> remains useful and usable.
> 
> It literally caused non-bootable machines because of that allegedly
> "remains useful and usable" because it changed something that never
> failed to failing. That's how this thread started.
> 
> So that's why the snark. I think you are deluding yourself and others
> if you call that "useful and usable".

Yes, thank you, I've already acknowledged that my patch caused boot
failures and I apologize for that unintentional breakage. Why does this
mean we should throw fips=1 in the bin, though? That's a total non sequitur.

The fact is that fips=1 is not useful if it doesn't actually result
something that complies with the standard; the only purpose of fips=1 is
to allow the kernel to be used and certified as a FIPS module. But as
SHA-1 is still allowed for now, please go ahead and revert my patch,
it's commit 9d50a25eeb05c.


Vegard