Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-117916-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:23:31 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, Guixiong Wei <weiguixiong@bytedance.com>,
	jgross@suse.com, mingo@redhat.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tony.luck@intel.com,
	adobriyan@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, relocs: Ignore relocations in .notes section on
 walk_relocs
Message-ID: <202403251318.EA2603C8@keescook>
References: <20240317150547.24910-1-weiguixiong@bytedance.com>
 <171079804927.224083.15609364452504732018.b4-ty@chromium.org>
 <20240318215612.GDZfi4fG52DTgra51p@fat_crate.local>
 <202403181644.690285D3@keescook>
 <20240319081640.GAZflJ6IBQ7TEKD2Ll@fat_crate.local>
 <202403190955.25E5E03E6@keescook>
 <20240322194658.GCZf3gMphnWeR9upN6@fat_crate.local>
 <202403221622.6EA43547F@keescook>
 <20240323103827.GAZf6xI94u8F9LGBIL@fat_crate.local>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240323103827.GAZf6xI94u8F9LGBIL@fat_crate.local>

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 11:38:27AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 04:40:11PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > The earlier patch, commit aaa8736370db ("x86, relocs: Ignore relocations
> > in .notes section"), landed via my tree. It was sent out on Feb 22nd
> > (v1[1]) and got a suggestion from HPA and a Review from Juergen Gross.
> > I sent v2 Feb 27th[2] and it sat ignored for two weeks.
> 
> s/ignored for two weeks/missed in the avalance of patches/
> 
> > Since it was a 10 year old kernel address exposure, I sent it to Linus
> > on Mar 12th[3].
> 
> So is there some unwritten understanding somewhere which says that you
> should take tip patches through your tree?
> 
> Maybe I've missed it.
> 
> If there isn't, should we agree on something?
> 
> Because there clearly is a need for clarification here...

Yeah, happy to figure this out. How should I handle x86 patches that
maintainers haven't responded to when they have security bug fix
implications? For all the security hardening stuff I usually just ping
every few weeks, but those don't usually tend to be urgent.

In this case, I felt like since it was a trivial fix, HPA had already
implied it was a sensible change, and Juergen had reviewed it, it seemed
like it wouldn't be disruptive to take it, given the timing of the merge
window, etc.

-- 
Kees Cook