[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXg1z0J0Ub7vPfNO4Tt-q7z=PNc6W8d8iSAV3FBmoXphA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 06:17:30 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
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()
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org> wrote:
> 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?
>
Unless Ingo says otherwise, let's let git deal with it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
