On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Marcel Holtmann <mar...@holtmann.org> wrote: > 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: netdev@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? >
Unless Ingo says otherwise, let's let git deal with it.
