On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 02:32:56PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Good to see you here:)
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 05:33:03PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > The patch below does not apply to the 5.19-stable tree.
> > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
> > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
> > id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
> > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> >
> > > From 0d519cadf75184a24313568e7f489a7fc9b1be3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Coiby Xu <coxu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 21:40:26 +0800
> > Subject: [PATCH] arm64: kexec_file: use more system keyrings to verify kernel
> > image signature
> >
> > Currently, when loading a kernel image via the kexec_file_load() system
> > call, arm64 can only use the .builtin_trusted_keys keyring to verify
> > a signature whereas x86 can use three more keyrings i.e.
> > .secondary_trusted_keys, .machine and .platform keyrings. For example,
> > one resulting problem is kexec'ing a kernel image would be rejected
> > with the error "Lockdown: kexec: kexec of unsigned images is restricted;
> > see man kernel_lockdown.7".
> >
> > This patch set enables arm64 to make use of the same keyrings as x86 to
> > verify the signature kexec'ed kernel image.
> >
> > Fixes: 732b7b93d849 ("arm64: kexec_file: add kernel signature verification support")
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 105e10e2cf1c: kexec_file: drop weak attribute from functions
This is not a valid commit id in Linus's tree.
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 34d5960af253: kexec: clean up arch_kexec_kernel_verify_sig
This is not a valid commit id in Linus's tree
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 83b7bb2d49ae: kexec, KEYS: make the code in bzImage64_verify_sig generic
And this too is not a valid commit in Linus's tree.
>
> I've added the above three patch prerequisites following [1]. I assume
> there is a program automatically picking up this patch. But somehow it
> fails to pick up the prerequisites first. Is it because the commit ids
> change when the patches are finally applied to Linus's tree?
Where did you get those commit ids from?
> If it's
> true, how do we make sure the we have the correct commit ids? Note [1]
> strongly recommends "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" to submit patches to
> stable tree but it seems there is no way to know beforehand the correct
> commit ids of the prerequisites that are yet to arrive in Linus's tree.
Hopefully the git ids can be stable when they are merged to a
maintainer's tree. If not, then you can respond to this "failed" email
with the full series of what needs to be done here, as I have no idea :(
thanks,
greg k-h
