Messages in this thread | | | From | Kees Cook <> | Date | Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:12:22 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE |
| |
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:26:20 -0700 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Here are the outstanding fixes for CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE, along with Daniel's >> v5 patch and a tweak from me to add CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE to avoid >> failing the build on architectures that have not hunted down all the needed >> fixes yet. >> >> This was in my for-next/kspp tree, but since it depends on fixes in other >> trees, the preference is for these to all get carried in -mm instead of >> in KSPP. > > All the patches you sent are already in -next (from the kspp tree?) so > I can't use them.
Err... that's what you asked me to send? And I had removed them from kspp so you could carry them.
>> The extra needed fixes in -next are: >> >> scsi: csiostor: Avoid content leaks and casts >> arm64, vdso: Define vdso_{start,end} as array >> staging/rts5208: Fix read overflow in memcpy >> libertas: Avoid reading past end of buffer >> ray_cs: Avoid reading past end of buffer > > These didn't get sent out?
These are all already in -next from other non-kspp trees. I was just trying to be complete about showing where all the needed fixes were.
> If the kspp tree is already in -next then how about leaving things that > way, and send Linus a pull request for -rc1?
*sob* I'm happy to do that. I just want you and sfr to agree. :P If I carry them in my kspp tree, it'll depend on -next (which I'm fine with, but sfr does not like).
I can add it all back to kspp, just let me what you both can agree on. :P
-Kees
-- Kees Cook Pixel Security
| |