On 10/11/2012 07:31 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 07:58:04PM +0900, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> If you think these patches constitute a regression, I can revert them.
>>> However I'd like convincing arguments since they're here to help address
>>> a real issue.
>>
>> If I missed these when doing the random number generation backport for
>> 3.0, and I should add them there as well, please let me know.
>
> At least I think they should not be in 2.6.32 without being in 3.0.
> Probably that Peter's opinion will help us decide whether they should
> go into 3.0 or 2.6.32 should revert them.
>
I would strongly argue for at least one of the RDRAND-enabling versions
being in all supported kernels; the second (with Ted Ts'o's changes) is
better, but touches a *lot* of subsystems; the plain one is
self-contained but only helps RDRAND-enabled hardware.
Without these patches the random subsystem has a critical security flaw,
which puts it into the scope for stable.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
