Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] stable trees and pushy maintainers; cgroups interface; hid; depth of maintainers tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 02:33:05AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> The problem we have actually encountered was 902c098a ... it's not obvious 
> how that patch would be fixing any security related issue (strictly 
> speaking, it could actually create a new security problem).
> It's not even closely tight to the rest of the patches in the series 
> (supposedly some of those patches is fixing some particular CVE ...).
> 
> So I still fail to see a proper explanation why 902c098a itself is 
> included in the stable tree.

The specific reason for these changes was the following research work:

	https://factorable.net/

In order to deal with this, we needed to sample randomness
unconditionally for every single interrupt.  Historically, kernel
developers had been very hesitant to sample for randomness because of
the potential performance hit.  As a result, most of the drivers
didn't sample for randomness, with the result shown above.  The fix
was to sample for randomness unconditionally; commit 902c098a was to
eliminate the performance impact of always sampling for randomness.

Regards,

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]