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 <mar...@holtmann.org> >>>>> Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gust...@padovan.org> >>>>> Cc: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedb...@gmail.com> >>>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net> >>>>> Cc: linux-blueto...@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Cc: net...@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> >>>>> Acked-and-tested-by: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedb...@intel.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@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
