linux-kernel - Re: [3.16 stable PATCH 1/1] virtio-rng: fix multi-device startup

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140812055548.GB12762@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:55:48 +0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>
Cc:	stable@...r.kernel.org, Amos Kong <akong@...hat.com>,
	Virtualization List <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [3.16 stable PATCH 1/1] virtio-rng: fix multi-device startup

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:01:58AM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Tue) 12 Aug 2014 [06:55:27], Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 06:11:47PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > This is a 3.16-only patch.  The linux.git fix is
> > > 5c06273401f2eb7b290cadbae18ee00f8f65e893, which fixes this issue in a
> > > different way.
> > 
> > Why "different"?  Why can't I take that original patch instead?  What is
> > different in this patch, and why?
> 
> The commit referenced moves the hwrng_register() call to the ->scan()
> callback instead of it being in probe().  This was done to ensure the
> virtio-rng devices can contribute to the initial system entropy
> introduced in commit d9e7972619334.
> 
> That patch is quite small too, but will need a slight conflict
> resolution due to the previous two code-shuffling patches, and also
> the following revert.
> 
> However, I decided against the backport of the ->scan() method, since
> it wasn't designed to solve this regression, it happens to solve it,
> and it actually introduces new functionality.  I would be happy to
> provide a backport of the relevant patches, if you think that would be
> alright.

I almost always want "original" patches as it causes less bugs overall,
and less confusion for everyone involved.  Taking 2-3 patches is just as
easy as 1 patch, and even easier if I don't have to review it as "hard"
due to it not differing from what is in Linus's tree.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/