lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 01/29] bluetooth: Switch SMP to crypto_cipher_encrypt_one()
From
Date
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@holtmann.org>
>>>>> Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
>>>>> Cc: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
>>>>> Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org
>>>>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
>>>>> Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
>>>>> Acked-and-tested-by: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-04 20:41    [W:0.117 / U:6.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site