[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <73C272C5-ECDB-4508-B8D3-1F54D5E8E6AB@holtmann.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:56:00 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"Gustavo F. Padovan" <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/29] bluetooth: Switch SMP to crypto_cipher_encrypt_one()
Hi Andy,
>>>>> SMP does ECB crypto on stack buffers. This is complicated and
>>>>> fragile, and it will not work if the stack is virtually allocated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Switch to the crypto_cipher interface, which is simpler and safer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
>>>>> Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>
>>>>> Cc: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>
>>>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
>>>>> Cc: linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>>>>> Acked-and-tested-by: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...el.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> net/bluetooth/smp.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> patch has been applied to bluetooth-next tree.
>>>
>>> Sadly carrying this separately will delay the virtual kernel stacks feature by a
>>> kernel cycle, because it's a must-have prerequisite.
>>
>> I can take it back out, but then I have the fear the the ECDH change to use KPP for SMP might be the one that has to wait a kernel cycle. Either way is fine with me, but I want to avoid nasty merge conflicts in the Bluetooth SMP code.
>
> Nothing goes wrong if an identical patch is queued in both places,
> right? Or, if you prefer not to duplicate it, could one of you commit
> it and the other one pull it? Ingo, given that this is patch 1 in the
> series and unlikely to change, if you want to make this whole thing
> have a separate branch in -tip, this could live there for starters.
> (But, if you do so, please make sure you base off a very new copy of
> Linus' tree -- the series is heavily dependent on the thread_info
> change he applied a few days ago.)
so what are doing now? I take this back out or we keep it in and let git deal with it when merging the trees?
Regards
Marcel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists