netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] Fix Kselftest's vfork() side effects

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: <Zjo1xyhjmehsRhZ2@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 07:12:51 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@...ikod.net>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, 
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Shengyu Li <shengyu.li.evgeny@...il.com>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, 
	Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>, 
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>, 
	"Günther Noack" <gnoack@...gle.com>, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>, Ron Economos <re@...z.net>, 
	Ronald Warsow <rwarsow@....de>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, 
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] Fix Kselftest's vfork() side effects

On Mon, May 06, 2024, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 06:55:08PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > Shuah, I think this should be in -next really soon to make sure
> > everything works fine for the v6.9 release, which is not currently the
> > case.  I cannot test against all kselftests though.  I would prefer to
> > let you handle this, but I guess you're not able to do so and I'll push
> > it on my branch without reply from you.  Even if I push it on my branch,
> > please push it on yours too as soon as you see this and I'll remove it
> > from mine.
> 
> Yes, please. Getting this into v6.9 is preferred,

Very strongly prefered for KVM selftests.  The negative impact on KVM isn't that
the bugs cause failures, it's that they cause false passes, which is far worse
(and why the bugs went unnoticed for most of the cycle).