On Mon 23-04-18 11:33:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 07:03:44PM -0600, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 20-04-18 15:14:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > These fix a number of perf, x86 and sched cases where we have user > > > controlled > > > array dereferences. All were found by Dan's recent Smatch update. > > > > Do we want to mark all of these for stable? > > If we all agree that any (speculative) user-controlled array index -- > irrespective of the existence of the second load/store that would > complete the gadget -- needs fixing and thus all these patches are > 'good', then yes, that makes sense.
Well, I would rather be on the safe side (have I heard security by fear?). So if those patches are landing in upstream then I would vote to mark them for stable. They should be trivial to backport and shouldn't cause regressions that makes them more suitable stable candidates than many I have seen recently... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
