Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 19:56:00 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <>
To: Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <>,
 Andy Lutomirski <>,
 X86 ML <>,
 LKML <>,
 linux-arch <>,
 Borislav Petkov <>,
 Nadav Amit <>,
 Kees Cook <>,
 Brian Gerst <>,
 "" <>,
 Linus Torvalds <>,
 Josh Poimboeuf <>,
 Jann Horn <>,
 Heiko Carstens <>,
 "Gustavo F. Padovan" <>,
 Johan Hedberg <>,
 "David S. Miller" <>,,
 Network Development <>
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 <>
>>>>> Cc: Gustavo Padovan <>
>>>>> Cc: Johan Hedberg <>
>>>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Acked-by: Herbert Xu <>
>>>>> Acked-and-tested-by: Johan Hedberg <>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 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?



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.