Re: [PATCH v4 01/29] bluetooth: Switch SMP to crypto_cipher_encrypt_one()

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Cc: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Cc: linux-bluetooth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Acked-and-tested-by: Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> 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.