On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 05:09:00PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 16:54, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 04:23:03PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 13:34, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > This function is consistent with using size instead of seed->size > > > > (except for one place that this patch fixes), but it reads seed->size > > > > without using READ_ONCE, which means the compiler might still do > > > > something unwanted. So, this commit simply adds the READ_ONCE > > > > wrapper. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Thanks Jason > > > > > > I've queued this in efi/urgent with a fixes: tag rather than a cc: > > > stable, since it only applies clean to v5.4 and later. > > > > Why do that? That just makes it harder for me to know to pick it up for > > 5.4 and newer. > > > > > We'll need a > > > backport to 4.14 and 4.19 as well, which has a trivial conflict > > > (s/add_bootloader_randomness/add_device_randomness/) but we'll need to > > > wait for this patch to hit Linus's tree first. > > > > Ok, if you are going to send it on to me for stable, that's fine, but > > usually you can just wait for the rejection notices for older kernels > > before having to worry about this. In other words, you are doing more > > work than you have to here :) > > > > So just > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > without any context is your preferred method? If you can provide a "Fixes:" tag showing what commit it does fix, that's even better as that way I _know_ to try to apply it to older kernels and if it fails, you will get an email saying it failed. With just a cc: stable, I do a "best guess" and don't work very hard if older kernels do not apply as I don't know if it is relevant or not. thanks, greg k-h
