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
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.